In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was
fought
in
WW2
would apply to today either.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking
about
what?


Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?


I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you
go
where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their
entire
nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my
website
for more specific information.,

Then a Minuteman squadron in South Dakota could leave the bad guys in a
state where a burning, smoldering ruin would be an upscale resort.
Perhaps even more significantly, a combination of missiles and standoff
weapons can leave the bad guys' headquarters a burning ruin -- but
mostly break windows in the apartment house next door.

I would suggest that there are some people today that have the right to
be very proud of that, whether they dropped the bombs or designed the
guidance systems.