Why did Bush join the national guard?

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 9/5/2004 6:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 9/5/2004 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
. ..

And as far as I know, nobody was flying B26's during the Vietnam era.


Well, not Martin B-26s.


And the highest rate of killing its crews.One a day in Tampa Bay. The
widowmaker, The B-dash-Crash.The flying Prostitute, The Flying Coffin.
Got it
now wannabee?

Art, The Army Air Force Statistical Digest disagrees with you. While
the Martin B-26 had the highest accident rate of any _Medium_ Bomber
(Medium being the B-25, B-26, and the Lockheed B-34), it never
approached the accident rate of the A-20, which had roughly twice teh
number lost per 100,000 Flight Hours, and all of the various
Fighter/Pursuit types.

Those aren't subjective impressions - they're hard facts, backed up by
the cold, unfeeling numbers.


But the frigging A-20 was yanked out of service while we flew B-26 in combat
to the bitter end. And of course you never had to fly the B-26 so what the
hell did you care?

The "frigging A-20" was in service throughout the war (From the very
beginning, actually, The same airplane, as the DB-7, was in service
with the French Armee de l'Air in 1940, and flew against the Germans)

They served until 1945, wherever teh AAF was - North Africa, the Med,
the ETO, and in the Pacific. They were replaced in mid-45, about the
same timeframe as the replacement of the Martin B-26, by the same
airplane - the Douglas A-26. It's worth noting that both the A-20 and
the Martin B-26 were dropped like hot potatoes after the war ended.

And no, I never flew a B-26. But I do care about facts.

Art, I consider your writings on your wartime experience, and your
photos to be valuable insights into what went on in a B-26 in the
ETO. And I don't gainsay your experience in that area at all.
Your subjective views on that subject, when placed in the context of
objective fact, add to my understanding of that period in time.

The political ranting, however, has been, at the least, over the top.
You're placing yourself into the "Immune to reason" category.
I'm not about to change your mind, nor am i willing to try.
But your unreasoned, ill-favored lashing out at anybody and everybody
who disagrees with you, in the most infantile and ridiculous ways
possible, do neither your favored candidate or yourself any good.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 9/6/2004 11:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 9/5/2004 6:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 9/5/2004 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

And as far as I know, nobody was flying B26's during the Vietnam era.


Well, not Martin B-26s.


And the highest rate of killing its crews.One a day in Tampa Bay. The
widowmaker, The B-dash-Crash.The flying Prostitute, The Flying Coffin.
Got it
now wannabee?

Art, The Army Air Force Statistical Digest disagrees with you. While
the Martin B-26 had the highest accident rate of any _Medium_ Bomber
(Medium being the B-25, B-26, and the Lockheed B-34), it never
approached the accident rate of the A-20, which had roughly twice teh
number lost per 100,000 Flight Hours, and all of the various
Fighter/Pursuit types.

Those aren't subjective impressions - they're hard facts, backed up by
the cold, unfeeling numbers.


But the frigging A-20 was yanked out of service while we flew B-26 in
combat
to the bitter end. And of course you never had to fly the B-26 so what the
hell did you care?

The "frigging A-20" was in service throughout the war (From the very
beginning, actually, The same airplane, as the DB-7, was in service
with the French Armee de l'Air in 1940, and flew against the Germans)

They served until 1945, wherever teh AAF was - North Africa, the Med,
the ETO, a

They yanked almost all the A-20's out of the ETO and sent them down to the MTO,
a less demanding theatre of operations. I don't think I ever saw an A-20 over
Germany.


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

But the frigging A-20 was yanked out of service while we flew B-26 in
combat
to the bitter end. And of course you never had to fly the B-26 so what
the
hell did you care?

The "frigging A-20" was in service throughout the war (From the very
beginning, actually, The same airplane, as the DB-7, was in service
with the French Armee de l'Air in 1940, and flew against the Germans)

They served until 1945, wherever teh AAF was - North Africa, the Med,
the ETO, a

They yanked almost all the A-20's out of the ETO and sent them down
to the MTO, a less demanding theatre of operations.


Which means your previous statement was wrong.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:40:45 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


The political ranting, however, has been, at the least, over the top.

The bloke is taking the complete **** of late.

Getting rather sick of binning flamefests initiated by him.


greg
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!