AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

Fred the Red Shirt July 14th 04 09:47 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
NOT From:
(Fred the Red Shirt)
[As anything I wrote had already been snipped]

The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?



Arthur Kramer

Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you

think
the job is you have been assigned to do


It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think whoever wrote that meant that the decision to stay on or take
advantage of an opportunity for transfer while still alive depended
on the degree of one's commitment. Not that the odds of survival
depended on the degree of one's commmitment.

As someone who never faced combat I'll not criticize the decision or
commitment of anyone who did.

--

FF

ArtKramr July 14th 04 11:58 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac


Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.


Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Paul J. Adam July 14th 04 11:59 PM

In message , Typhoon502
writes
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the
worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival.


To a point, but it depends on mission, role and threat.

That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on.


True, but how does an "experienced bomber pilot" holding formation in
the box avoid barrage AAA? Can't change course or speed - you're in
*formation*. What else can you do except hold on and hope?

Tactical fighters (and ground combat troops, interestingly) have a well
documented survivability curve, rising rapidly in the early stages as
they learn to recognise and honour the threats (and according to some,
dropping towards the end of fixed-length tours - combat fatigue or
overconfidence? Don't know, but it's at least claimed)

But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fi each roundshot
fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
of aim and the flight of the shot.

Experience improved your chances of coming back after damage, fending
off fighter attack and avoiding loss by error (those weren't easy or
forgiving aircraft) but did nothing to reduce the odds of an AA shell
exploding within lethal distance of your aircraft.

That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.


Worth doing just about everywhere.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.


Also no argument.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Guy Alcala July 15th 04 01:02 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.


I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.


You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.


I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
rolling in the aisles en masse.

I've got a
great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor


didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.


I'll be looking for it.

My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
able to get some stick time in the RG;-)


Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.


It's been so long I don't remember, although that does ring a vague bell. No doubt I'd
remember better if I'd ever been able to get him to turn over control ;-) We used to
come up the coast low over the ocean from Half Moon Bay to the City, pulling up to avoid
the sailboats we didn't want to go around, before passing over the Golden Gate Bridge.
A great flight when the fog wasn't a problem.

Guy


BUFDRVR July 15th 04 01:28 AM

Jack wrote:

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?


The guys at Utapo did. Because they were much closer (than Guam) and the wing
much smaller, most Utapo crews flew everyday and by the second week the guys at
Utapo had collected a pretty descent group of "lessons learned".

As far as a statistical comparison, its dificult to make because of several
varying factors, not the least of which was the G models ECM suite which was
much less capable than the D model. Additionally, because of their higher loss
rates, after Night #5, the G models never went "downtown" again. In the end,
out of the 15 aircraft lost during LBII, 7 were from Utapo and 8 from Andersen
for an even split.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

B2431 July 15th 04 01:50 AM

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/13/2004 5:10 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.


Why isn't Kerry the issue?


Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.

Walt


Gee, walt, portions of my records are missing. Guess I shouldn't run for public
office according to your standards.

Y'know, many of us have asked you if you were so concerned with clinton's draft
dodging and you have refused to answer. Are you that hypocritical? Dean
admitted to providing false information to his draft board to avoid the draft.
Did you ever say anything about that?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 July 15th 04 02:00 AM

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/13/2004 5:07 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
16 months:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif


It does not show that he was AWOL.


No, you have to draw that inference yourself.

Walt


Walt, for someone who claims to have been in the military you seem peculiarly
ignorant of what a determination of AWOL is. AWOL means absent without official
leave. Since AWOL is a crime under the UCMJ there would have to be
documentation of it somewhere in his or JAG's records. If no one ever charged
Bush with being AWOL he wasn't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ArtKramr July 15th 04 02:34 AM

ubject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:59 PM


And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.


Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Steve Mellenthin July 15th 04 03:05 AM

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer


Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.





ArtKramr July 15th 04 03:23 AM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 7:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer


Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you
need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat
was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.




I only speak from personal experience. in WW II.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com