Is it easier now?

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/27/04 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 417v309d5onmk1m7rbjsbsuvhu

Then, I'd
have to say the US leadership was strong and the morale/patriotism of
the ground soldier was what made the military so powerful. It wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership,

First you say the leadership was strong then you talk about incompetent
leadership. I think the leadership in WW II was outstanding, better than in
many wars that followed. When I returned in the F-4, I logged another 150
missions. That was
among a lot of guys on their second or even third combat tours. That's
250 total--how many did you say you got?

I flew 50 missions. 15 short of going home. But as I started in a previous
post, :"An officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive" So I won't
go on the defensive now. And I certainly will not raise the issue of WW II
losses in the air as compared to Nam losses in the air.


Three out of
five who started a tour were shot down and killed or captured.

That is a 60% loss rate. Can you verify that?


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

Ed wrote:
Then, I'd
have to say the US leadership was strong and the morale/patriotism of
the ground soldier was what made the military so powerful. It wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership,

Art snapped back with :

First you say the leadership was strong then you talk about incompetent
leadership. I think the leadership in WW II was outstanding, better than in
many wars that followed.

Art read what the HECK that Ed wrote again. He didn't say that the US
leadership was incompetent. He SAID "it wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership, He referred to STRONG LEADERSHIP and
MORALE/PATRIOTISM of the troops as the factors which led to success.

Rick Clark

On 27 Feb 2004 20:08:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Is it easier now?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/27/04 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 417v309d5onmk1m7rbjsbsuvhu

Then, I'd
have to say the US leadership was strong and the morale/patriotism of
the ground soldier was what made the military so powerful. It wasn't
blind obedience to incompetent leadership,

First you say the leadership was strong then you talk about incompetent
leadership. I think the leadership in WW II was outstanding, better than in
many wars that followed.

I said the leadership was strong. I said it WASN'T blind obedience to
incompetent leadership.

One of the key elements of American success in the air--all wars in
the air, not just WW II, has been the aggressiveness and the
initiative of the American aviators. That isn't lock-step blind
obedience.

Three out of
five who started a tour were shot down and killed or captured.

That is a 60% loss rate. Can you verify that?


Arthur Kramer

If you'll check the Appendix of When Thunder Rolled, you'll find a
listing of 101 F-105 losses (tail number and crew names by date)
during the period April/November 1966. That was from 3 squadrons at
Takhli (18 aircraft/squadron) and first two squadrons, then from July
onward, four squadrons at Korat. That's a loss of 110 % of the
assigned aircraft in six months. The names and dates come from "Roll
Call: Thud" and from Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses." (dual sourcing.)

Newsweek magazine in August of '66 published the 1-in-65 missions
figure as part of a feature article on Major James Kasler, Korean War
ace who was active in F-105s from Takhli. Kasler was shot down shortly
thereafter and spent the next 6.5 years in captivity.

You might want to discuss the "momma's boy" comment with some of the
ex-cons. They would be happy to talk about courage, I'm sure.



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