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

Friendly Fire Notebook



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old April 17th 04, 04:24 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Apr 2004 02:20:13 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I think that is painting with too broad a brush.


Yes, it was, but Michel's anti-SAC bias shines throughout the book and is the
only negative aspect to his writing. I felt he could drop the anti-SAC attitude
and still make his point.


Sounds like your wearing your heart on your sleeve. Marsh simply and
clearly states the relationship between SAC and the unified command.
He points out the parochialism driven by the bomber-generals and the
failure of leadership that cost a lot of airplanes during LB II.
Statement of the events and pointing out the relationships isn't
"anti-SAC bais."

But, in LB II, we escalated to a previously unused level of force and
in a very short period restruck almost every significant target in the
area.


and struck them again and again and again....


Then your research probably disclosed the original prep order that
directed the wings to conduct a full scale, maximum effort for THREE
DAYS. The option to extend beyond the original three day effort was
because we still had targets to hit and we were still inflicting heavy
damage.

I've got to state that while participation doesn't guarantee
understanding, it does provide insight and a level of detail that
can't be gleaned from poring through micro-fiche archives of op-rep 4s
and unit histories written by a squadron Lt as an additional duty.


How about most of the sources Michel used (I even included his work)? Michel
did the same thing I did (plus conduct interviews). Are you saying his work is
suspect or does he get a pass "because he was there"?


I'm not saying either. He doesn't get a pass because of attendance and
his work is excellent. I have written a formal review of his book and
the two faults that I found (which don't outweigh the excellent
detail, the probing analysis and the extremely valuable enemy
perspective), were the short-shrift given to the daytime ops and the
emphasis on the NVN view of the battle as "the Dien Bien Phu of the
air war." If that was a "victory" for them it was most assuredly
Phyrric.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
 




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
"Friendly fire" Mike Military Aviation 0 March 19th 04 02:36 PM
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death Paul Hirose Military Aviation 0 March 16th 04 12:49 AM
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 18th 03 08:44 PM
Fire officer tops in field — again Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 13th 03 08:37 PM
Friendly fire pilot may testify against wingman Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 11th 03 09:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.


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