A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A question about the Transall C160



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #8  
Old September 29th 03, 10:18 AM
shonen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in
just
enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
work.


Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had

withdrawn
France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France

needed to
be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been

unable
to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign

(to
them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They

remained out
of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s,

although I
am not sure of that date or time period.

George Z.


As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile
crisis. It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could not
depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened. The US were
willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from
Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba. The
US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe. The French
felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the
Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness
to sacrifice NATO security for their own.

Not that I blame the US. The whole massive retaliation thing wasn't a really
practical proposition. In may sound good in theory, but when things come to
a crunch, the US really couldn't be expected to make the supreme sacrifice
for Europe. The Europeans knew this and were always wary of US efforts to
distance themselves, or to restrict nuclear war just to Europe. I guess if
the French nuked Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have worried who they nuked in
retaliation. Share the pain.

As for the Transall, my 1968 Observors says crew of 4, 81 troops or 62
casualty stretchers and 4 medical attendants. Other (vehicle) loads not
exceeding 35,270 lb. weight.Military Transports and Training Aircraft of the
World add cross section of the cabin is 9ft, 7in by 10 ft 2 1/2 in for a
length of 42 ft.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 04:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Question Charles S Home Built 4 April 5th 04 09:10 PM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 01:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.