Friendly Fire Notebook

On 20 Apr 2004 22:23:11 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If on scene US observers
aren't reliable sources of information, why should lowest level,
in-the-jungle, low-tech, guerillas on the enemy side be more reliable?

Well it depends on who is commenting on what. A U.S. Marine commenting on how
well supplied the enemy was is conjecture, a NV officer discussing personal
experiences about ammo shortages and testimony from high ranking government
officials supporting that experience,makes that a documented fact.

You're hedging. You indicated that personal observation was a poor
source of historical fact; that on-scene observers were unreliable and
only imperfectly viewed the metaphorical "lower right-hand corner of
the big picture." Then you offered a "young NV Lt, armed with an AK-47
and a pistol" and no ammo.

Today you discount the intense fighting that was going on at Hue, An
Loc, and Khe Sanh during the period in question. Lots of ammo was
being expended by the bad guys---it must have come from somewhere and
I'll be willing to believe US troops on the scene that it was being
fired.

Dare I say that the Kep strikes by the BUFFs didn't close the airfield
down?

Probably not since IIRC, Kep was one of the "crosswind" missions. However that
airfield received attention during the day on more than one occasion and the
BUFFs returned there on three more occasions. I realize we're not talking
about JDAMs here Ed, but surely you guys couldn't have been that bad?

There were night strikes by the F-111s on the airfields during LB II.
As you know, an airfield is a very difficult target to disable. And,
no, we weren't that bad. In fact, if you see the pix of Radio Hanoi
after the LGB guys from Ubon showed up, you'll see the level of
accuracy. You also might consider the Doumer Bridge, the Dragon Jaw at
Thanh Hoa, the Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges as examples of artistry
with manually delivered dive bombs. And, consider the difference
between unleashing a JDAM from 30 miles away, high in the menopause
and the idea of hurling your chubby pink body at the ground amidst a
hail of 23/37/57/85/100 mm flak, SA-2s and other flying metal.

Recall that two MiG-21 kills were awarded to B-52 gunners? (I'm
not saying they happened, merely that they were credited.)

What? You mean everyone in the USAF from the Air Force Academy through Air War
College is wrong? I'm shocked Before I exchanged posts here with you Ed, I
had never even heard those shoot downs were questionable. After discussing it
with you, Dr. Thompson and reading Michel's book I'm convinced both those guys
shot at F-4s...however I can go to Maxwell and read about those shoot downs. By
the way, those accounts were written by guys "who were there" and not in the
back of a library.

I don't think they shot at F-4s. An F-4 had no reason to get to the
altitudes of the B-52s (in fact in A/A configuration with three bags
it was almost impossible.) I suspect that they were shooting at
shadows--no airplanes at all. But, it was good for morale to award
some kills.

Maybe Guy Alcala knows if Toperczer reported any losses from the NVN
side related to the BUFF gunner claims.

The operative word on those targettings is "probable".

Absolutely.

we could
never be sure of exactly where a SAM site was going to pop up.

Same is true today...for the most part, but you claimed SAM sites were always
response targets, what you should have said was *confirmed* SAM sites were
always response targets, although that might not have been true had an SA-2
been parked under any of those F-111 or B-52 target areas.

A SAM site without SAMs or radar in residence isn't really a SAM site
is it?


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

You're hedging. You indicated that personal observation was a poor
source of historical fact; that on-scene observers were unreliable and
only imperfectly viewed the metaphorical "lower right-hand corner of
the big picture."

Taken by itself, yes, personal observations are not adequate historical
sources. When backed up by other personal sources they get more credibility,
but when backed up by documents, they become factual. The munition, food and
POL shortages experienced by the NVA in the summer of '72 are well documented
by NV government records and by dozens of NV officers and enlisted who were
obsessive diary keepers. Ed, you're arguing against a very solid historic fact.

There were night strikes by the F-111s on the airfields during LB II.

And BUFFs.

As you know, an airfield is a very difficult target to disable.

Not with 108 bombs its not! Come on Ed, I split the runways at Batajanica with
a B-52 two-ship with a grand total of 90 weapons. 2 more two-ships followed
until we quartered the runway making it useless for anything except a
Cessna-172. This was all done with unguided Mk-82s. Its not really that
difficult to cut runways, even with unguided weapons.

And, consider the difference
between unleashing a JDAM from 30 miles away

30 miles ? I wish it were possible....

and the idea of hurling your chubby pink body at the ground amidst a
hail of 23/37/57/85/100 mm flak, SA-2s and other flying metal.

I have seen, up close and personal, SA-2s, SA-3's and SA-6s. Operating in the
"menopause" is not as safe as you seem to think.

I suspect that they were shooting at
shadows--no airplanes at all.

However, this whole issue gets at the heart of your argument. Here you have
reports from guys who were actually there and compared to studies done by guys
who weren't actually there (sitting in the back of a library as you put it) we
find the "library guys" more historically accurate. Why? Because the infameous
"fog and friction" tends to distort reality. There's no fog and little friction
from the back of a library. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the study
Checkmate did in the 80s of a supposed F-4 to F-4 blue on blue kill in Vietnam,
but several guys who were not old enough to drive when the incident occured,
accurately figured out that a supposed blue-on-blue kill in 1971 (I think?)
over NVN was, in fact, an enemy MiG-21 that shot down the F-4. As far as I'm
concerned personal eyewitness accounts are good historical sources, but like
all other sources, must be supported by other documentation.

A SAM site without SAMs or radar in residence isn't really a SAM site
is it?

LOL...nope, not at all. I was trying to point out that had there been an SA-2
site located in those areas (which there wasn't), they would have certainly
been destroyed, so the fact that no SAMs were attacked by B-52s is a matter of
good NVN luck.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Apr 2004 10:39:02 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

You're hedging. You indicated that personal observation was a poor
source of historical fact; that on-scene observers were unreliable and
only imperfectly viewed the metaphorical "lower right-hand corner of
the big picture."

Taken by itself, yes, personal observations are not adequate historical
sources. When backed up by other personal sources they get more credibility,
but when backed up by documents, they become factual. The munition, food and
POL shortages experienced by the NVA in the summer of '72 are well documented
by NV government records and by dozens of NV officers and enlisted who were
obsessive diary keepers. Ed, you're arguing against a very solid historic fact.

My challenge has never been that historical compilation is inaccurate.
I've been contending that as long as we have first person accounts
available, we can integrate the "official" record with the live
on-scene experiences to get a considerably more accurate account. In
many instances, availability of first-person recollections will result
in correction of the historic records.

The real issue here is that on the one hand you are eager to discount
first person US recollections on intensity of the fighting and
simultaneously accept the NVN statements. And, do you really mean to
say that the NVA operating from the tunnels and jungle caves deep into
SVN, short of "munition, food and POL" were devoting their time to
meticulous record keeping? This while the massive US bureaucracy of
MAC-V was simply doodling away on French cuisine and Eurasian whores?


As you know, an airfield is a very difficult target to disable.

Not with 108 bombs its not! Come on Ed, I split the runways at Batajanica with
a B-52 two-ship with a grand total of 90 weapons. 2 more two-ships followed
until we quartered the runway making it useless for anything except a
Cessna-172. This was all done with unguided Mk-82s. Its not really that
difficult to cut runways, even with unguided weapons.

Gimme a break. I'll accept your well-earned pride in your system and
capabilities, but if you've really done that in-depth research of the
LB II BUFF strikes, you've seen the same B&W BDA photos I have from
the period. Long bomb trains walking up to and over discrete targets
with one, two or three bombs out of the string possibly hitting the
target---or in some instances ending before the target, starting after
the target or paralleling the target but missing cleanly.

And, I'm sure you've been briefed and maybe even personally observed
"rapid runway repair" teams in action. That technology has been around
for a lot of years. And, you can trust me, the NV were quite good at
it. Maybe Serbs hadn't finished the correspondence course yet.


I suspect that they were shooting at
shadows--no airplanes at all.

However, this whole issue gets at the heart of your argument. Here you have
reports from guys who were actually there and compared to studies done by guys
who weren't actually there (sitting in the back of a library as you put it) we
find the "library guys" more historically accurate. Why? Because the infameous
"fog and friction" tends to distort reality. There's no fog and little friction
from the back of a library. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the study
Checkmate did in the 80s of a supposed F-4 to F-4 blue on blue kill in Vietnam,
but several guys who were not old enough to drive when the incident occured,
accurately figured out that a supposed blue-on-blue kill in 1971 (I think?)
over NVN was, in fact, an enemy MiG-21 that shot down the F-4. As far as I'm
concerned personal eyewitness accounts are good historical sources, but like
all other sources, must be supported by other documentation.

Ahhh, Checkmate..."John Warden? I knew John Warden. John Warden was a
friend of mine. And, frankly, Senator, you're no John Warden...."
(Sorry, I digress.)

Read about Chuck Horner's dismissal of John Warden when setting up the
offensive team for Desert Storm in Clancy's collaboration, "Every Man
a Tiger."

"blue-on-blue kill in 1971"? Sounds like some of that great
history---no ops going in in MiG country in '71. LB didn't start until
May of '72, and the various "protective reaction" incursions were down
in the panhandle.

Recently, Howard Plunkett sent me an extract from the Pentagon study
(Red Baron) that gathered all the MiG engagement data of the SEA war.
It covered an encounter that I had with a MiG-17 that is detailed in
When Thunder Rolled in the chapter titled "MiGs and Moustaches". The
positions in the illustrations are wrong. The sequence of events is
wrong. The ranges between aircraft are wrong. Even the location
relative to the target and other flights is wrong. The only interview
conducted to establish the definitive historic account was done eight
months after the event with the flight lead in Wichita KS. No other
participants were interviewed and the flight lead was not in a
position to witness the entire engagement. Yet, that becomes the
historic record.

For several years after LB II, Carl Jeffcoat who I mentioned earlier
as being downed by a MiG 21 near Kep, believed that he was shot down
by a member of the Hunter/Killer flight rather than an enemy aircraft.
Talking to several participants who were airborne that day, we
confirmed that no H/K aircraft were carrying Sidewinders. No H/K
aircraft fired a Sparrow.

If you read the history of LB II, twenty years from now, you'll know
that two BUFF tail gunners killed MiG 21s. Today, while some of the
participants are still around, we'll tell you that while it is
remotely possible it is extremely unlikely.

YMMV.



A SAM site without SAMs or radar in residence isn't really a SAM site
is it?

LOL...nope, not at all. I was trying to point out that had there been an SA-2
site located in those areas (which there wasn't), they would have certainly
been destroyed, so the fact that no SAMs were attacked by B-52s is a matter of
good NVN luck.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

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

If you read the history of LB II, twenty years from now, you'll know
that two BUFF tail gunners killed MiG 21s. Today, while some of the
participants are still around, we'll tell you that while it is
remotely possible it is extremely unlikely.

Well put Ed, as usual, far better than I ever could. Had my interview with Ray
Sullivan today at the AF Museum for the LB II documentary. Interesting
session. He told me that his dad was the Gen Sullivan mentioned in the
accounts as the SAC senior officer who signed the SAC LB II impelementing order
and was later "fired" into Air Rescue Service for opposing the LB II initial
tactics as documented by Mitchell. My copy is loaned out and I don't recall
the exact circumstances. He spoke very highly of you and has your bio and
picture in a list of major contributors to the production..

Thus far he has 16 hours of interviews and Discovery Channel and Hstory Channel
are going to pick it up but the date is still not nailed down..

He has talked at length to Karl Eschmann and Mike Mitchell. He will use
Eschmann as a major source and probably as the lead in. Mitchell was involved
from the start and the "11 Days" book was the seed for the documentary but he
and Mitchell went their separate ways over disagreement on content and level of
detail. He is well versed on all the controversy surrounding LB II but wants
to tell the story from the viewpoints of the guys who were directly involved.

This should a great documentary from the sound of it. The story will be told
through filmed intereviews from the production cast and crew of Linebacker II
rather than secondhand through the eyes of an author his own interpretations as
we are debating here. . .

Had my interview with Ray
Sullivan today at the AF Museum for the LB II documentary. Interesting
session. He told me that his dad was the Gen Sullivan mentioned in the
accounts as the SAC senior officer who signed the SAC LB II impelementing
order
and was later "fired" into Air Rescue Service for opposing the LB II initial
tactics as documented by Mitchell. My copy is loaned out and I don't recall
the exact circumstances. He spoke very highly of you and has your bio and
picture in a list of major contributors to the production..

Thus far he has 16 hours of interviews and Discovery Channel and Hstory
Channel
are going to pick it up but the date is still not nailed down..

He has talked at length to Karl Eschmann and Mike Mitchell. He will use
Eschmann as a major source and probably as the lead in. Mitchell was
involved
from the start and the "11 Days" book was the seed for the documentary but he
and Mitchell went their separate ways over disagreement on content and level
of
detail. He is well versed on all the controversy surrounding LB II but wants
to tell the story from the viewpoints of the guys who were directly involved.

This should a great documentary from the sound of it. The story will be told
through filmed intereviews from the production cast and crew of Linebacker II
rather than secondhand through the eyes of an author his own interpretations
as
we are debating here. . .


Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

.. .

Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel
gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


Checkout the web page.

http://www.teleproductiongroup.com/12_72-main.html

Lots of extracts from the interviews. Ed's mug is there and I suppose mine
will there there eventually. Karl is there as well. Ray really bit on some of
my wildass tales, oops, I meant accounts.

The outcome will truly be interesting.

I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity. I don't know
Michael. I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong here but I know
the accounts of the MiG shootdowns and the hybrid radar were pretty convincing
to me when I heard them at Korat. Michael's book contains other information
that desn't pass the logic test to me so I guess we each have to judge for
ourselves. Karl's original manuscript reads like a medical examiners report and
everything else in the book seems quite precise and acurate almost to a fault.

MIchael apparently was a lot more into nitty gtitty details of LB II than Ray
wanted to go. This isn't meant to be a definitive history just an account from
the eyes and ears of the people who particpated including the maintainers,
rescuers, and POWs.

Steve.

I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity.

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both Eschmann's and Michel's book and I
don't believe Eschmann intentionally mislead anyone in his book, he conducted
very detailed interviews of participants and used official USAF documents.
Michel went a step further. He confirmed through both Soviet and Vietnamese
sources that they had no LOW BLOWs in country before 1975, thus dispelling the
"hybrid radar" myth. As far as dispelling the MiG shootdown, Michel again went
one step further and inteviewed Vietnamese Air Force officers and was allowed
access to their official documents. Michel concluded there were no MiG-21s in
the area of the BUFFs on either night. Michel also concluded they were probably
shooting at F-4s who dived away, but Ed questions that aspect. I believe the
exact circumstances of those two incidents will never be known.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Apr 2004 23:08:03 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs
and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well.
Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn.

Marshall Michel, OTOH, did a better job on "Eleven Days". He also did
a good job on "Clashes" although I still haven't forgiven him for
taking the easy way out and using only call-signs and not names.
That's unforgiveable for a historian.

I'm surprised to hear that Sullivan and Marsh had a disagreement. I
interviewed with Sullivan a couple of years ago through the auspices
of Michel who brought the whole film crew to the River Rat reunion in
Atlanta. It was just before "Eleven Days" was released and I thought
the whole project was in support of the book, not a separate effort.

Will be eager to see the video when it finally airs, as they have
definitely talked to a lot of the right people from both the big and
little airplane forces.


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

On 21 Apr 2004 23:08:03 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs
and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well.
Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn.

Marshall Michel, OTOH, did a better job on "Eleven Days". He also did
a good job on "Clashes" although I still haven't forgiven him for
taking the easy way out and using only call-signs and not names.
That's unforgiveable for a historian.

I'm surprised to hear that Sullivan and Marsh had a disagreement. I
interviewed with Sullivan a couple of years ago through the auspices
of Michel who brought the whole film crew to the River Rat reunion in
Atlanta. It was just before "Eleven Days" was released and I thought
the whole project was in support of the book, not a separate effort.

Will be eager to see the video when it finally airs, as they have
definitely talked to a lot of the right people from both the big and
little airplane forces.


Ed Rasimus


I loaned my copy of Eschmann's book to Al Falcione when we worked together on
the B-2 but never got it back. It and the ACSC manuscript differsomewhat in
their conclusions as I recall. I remember Karl telling me that there was some
pressure to keep the conclusions PC as SAC/ACC were hard pressed to defend
program funding for their B-1B and B-2 acquisitions . The AF wanted to keep
the heavy bomber critics at arms during that and I have always felt that is why
PC history doesn't quite seem to parallel reality with regards to LBII. I
worked both programs in that period and even under Reagan with the Cold war
winding down, bombers were a tough sell. Both programs were $$ capped and
there was tremendous pressure to keep them under budget.

Sullivan acknowledged that Michael was a key player in getting the project off
the ground and getting him into the fighter "circle". The book and the
documentary apparently were indeed one and the same effort initially, . As I
said earlier. it seems to be more of a difference of opinion over whether the
documentary was to be more of historical effort or an intro to LBII for the
masses so to speak. He indicated that his purpose was to make LBII more known
to the public as a whole as most people are totally unaware that it ever
happened. Somewhat long the lines of the ever increasing popular awareness of
WWII and Korea we have been witnessing. The same seems to be just starting for
the Vietnam era as evidenced by release of a movie like We Were Soldiers that
show VN vets in a more human and positive light as opposed to Platoon,
Apocolypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket.

I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs
and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well.
Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn.

What makes this more interesting Ed is that you and Steve have exact opposite
views on the accuracy of two books on the same subject. Steve feels Eschmann's
book is spot on and Michel's fails the accuracy test. What's that you were
saying about eyewitness accounts


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"