A question about the Transall C160

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withdrawn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.

"shonen" wrote in message
...


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.


Incorrect

The Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962
France withdrew its forces from the Nato command structure
in 1966 giving as a reason the dominance of US commanders in the
organisation.

There was nothing in the NATO charter to prevent France
developing its own strategic deterrent , this is in fact what the
UK did.

Keith

"shonen" wrote in message ...
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.

Then your memory needs recalibrating a bit. Check the timeline.

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.

And just when did we sell out Europe during a crisis? Berlin in 48?
Nope. Berlin in 61-62? Nope. So when did this great sell out occur?
ISTR that the US was still providing the bulk of the common defense
for Europe in 1989, when the all came down?

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.

That is true (so you are what, one-for-three so far?). JFK and his
little brother did make that a secret deal, something some of us are
none too proud of. But that was hardly a case of "selling out Europe",
either; the case can be, and has been, made that those Jupiter's were
already on their way out, and this was really an inconsequential grant
to Khrushev to allow him to save some face with the Politburo. If it
*was* a sell out, what does the fact that the US pushed through the
European basing of Pershing II and GLCM's during the 80's imply?

The
US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe.

Thirty plus years of history in successfully facing the Soviets in
Western Europe seems to make that statement lack credibility.

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.

No, the French were just pursuing their own vision of independence
from the alliance in general, and the US in particular. IMO, they had
a national ego problem extending back to their WWII
experience/performance (or lack thereof), and this was just another
manner of making themselves feel as if they were again a superpower.
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force
*without* resorting to the theatrics exemplified in the French
pull-out from the unified command structure.


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.

But the only thing that matters in the end is that it *worked*.

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.

Illogical if you are positing that the French would nuke Moscow
without involvement of the US and other NATO allies, IMO. What route
would you have had those Mirage IV's (and their supporting
tankers--they bought their KC-135's expressly to support the Force de
Frappe, or Crappe, or whatever...) flying to *get* to Moscow? ISTR it
was not until about 1971 that their IRBM force became operational?

Brooks


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.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"shonen" wrote in message
...

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.

No, [...]
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force

Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
independant from the US...

"Phil" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"shonen" wrote in message
...

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.

No, [...]
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force

Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
independant from the US...


Lets see.

The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with
missiles bought from the US that carry UK designed and
built warheads.

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles
is subject to UK control

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"shonen" wrote in message
...

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.

No, [...] Note that the UK also developed its own independent
nuclear force

Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far
from independant from the US...

Lets see.

The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.
It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
to UK control
Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?
Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)
I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.

"Phil" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.
It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?


The missiles are bought from the USA, the rentry system is
developed in the UK with technical support form Lockheed Martin

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
to UK control
Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?
Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)


History wouldnt stop a British retaliation for a nuclear attack
no matter how much the US disapproved.


I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.


Its hard to imagine what sort of event could cause
a nuclear response in that war, more to the point was
the British warning to Iraq in Gulf War 1 that any Iraqi
use of WMD against British forces could prompt a
nuclear response.

Keith