Why is Stealth So Important?

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

We have less tolerance today than we did in 1970 for losing our pilots
in combat against enemy air defenses.

I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
stealthy characteristics.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote

I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
stealthy characteristics.

It wouldn't have mattered, as the white house was building the ATO, and
most of them flew the same waypoints year after year. It was a war designed
to be lost, by officers who were pretty much derelict in everything they did.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:tzwMb.10086$6l1.1052@okepread03...

snip

It was a war designed to be lost, by officers who were pretty much
derelict in everything they did.



Well, the comment about micromanagement from the White House was generally
accurate, so I guessed you are getting a *bit* better, but then you toss out
this unsubstantiated crap. Please provide some evidence that US military
officers intended to lose the war...no? That's right, you can't. No doubt
there were decisions made by some officers that were, in hindsight, wrong.
But "pretty much derelict in everything they did"? It is amazing that you
have recently spent so much time and effort defending the actions of folks
like Hitler and Saddam, and then come out with an indictement like the
above.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:59:37 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You might want to review the relationship between the military and the
government established by the US Constitution.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

???? We? Who is we? And, why would the French need approval from
anyone other than the French people? And, if they "decolonized" in
1946, what was going on at Dien Bien Phu in 1954?

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

What's the relevance of the link? It certainly doesn't offer any
support for US military officers intending to lose.

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict.

You might refer to Marshall Michel's excellent work, "Eleven Days of
Christmas" for some insight into the relationship between SAC and the
rest of the US military. Pay close attention to the command
relationships. SAC was not under the operational control of MACV or
7th Air Force.

Then, you might also want to check the size of the target area, the
availability of offset or direct aim points for a weapons delivery,
and the need to avoid collateral damage in a target area. (I might
even offer you a first-person account by a POW who was moved to a cell
that was immediately across the street from the Hanoi Power Plant.)
Some times there are only so many ways you can approach a target. Why
come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

But, if we count casualties, then the 58,000 names on the Wall are
minor compared to the estimates of 2 to 3 million that the NVN and VC
lost in the war.

Whether we won or lost, suffered immense casualties or none at all,
the sniveling weak sisters who burned their draft cards would still
have been driven only by the desire to preserve their own worthless
hides.

And, you might also want to check out the number of Reserve and Guard
units that served in combat in SEA and how many casualties they
incurred.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Why come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

Plinking. Total waste of time. Didn't achieve anything, and akin to Germans
bombing London. Big deal.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:01:05 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Why come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

Plinking. Total waste of time. Didn't achieve anything, and akin to Germans
bombing London. Big deal.


Well, it was my time to waste and pretty damned exciting.

If you check some tonnages delivered by the tactical forces during
Rolling Thunder (that's without the truly incredible numbers added by
the B-52s in Linebacker II), you'll find that we stack up quite
comparably to the major Allied bombing campaigns of WW II.
Exponentially greater than the "plinking" of the V-1, V-2 and light
bombers of the WW II Luftwaffe.

In just two days, the 29th and 30th of June, 1966, for example we
destroyed 85% of the POL storage and handling facilities in the
country. During most of the period we kept nearly 300,000 workers
occupied along the NE and NW railroads repairing the bridges and
rights of way. In LB II, during eleven days we confirmed kills on 43
SAM sites. There are other examples, but it seems that you have a
pretty firmly established position on the matter.


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

ways you can approach a target. Why
come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.


By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
RA5 planes.

By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
RA5 planes.

Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in Linebacker.
Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the front
of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away from the
run in. heading.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:wFFMb.20$ce2.7@okepread03...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose
the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You'll have to do better than that. How did they INTEND to lose it?


It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.


http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three
B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever
drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and
those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the
great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer
casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn
their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

What claptrap. You are about one notch above that ZZBunker character in
terms of having a grasp of reality. The fact that the early tactics of the
B-52 raids during LBII were flawed had nothing to do with the way the war
progressed. And assigning the qualities of draft resister to *all*, or even
*most*, of the US citizens in the late sixties/early seventies is pure
unadulterated BS. While casualties are never good, the fact is that the
casualty count in Vietnam was much less than that of either WWI or WWII, and
the casualty *rate* was less than that experienced in Korea (given that the
duration of active combat operations in Korea was much less than that
experienced in Vietnam). You need to go back to supporting the policies of
Saddam and Hitler--as ridiculous as those attempts were, you were probably
making more headway with them than with this nonsense.

Brooks