Friendly Fire Notebook

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"

Date: 4/22/2004 8:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

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.



************************************

I agree with Ed. Trying to get an F-4 that highand to keep up with the bombers
in the configurations we had was not much more than a pipe dream So far as
official records are concerned, I can tell you that I have read some of the
accounts if operations I was involved in, in Korea and SEA, in the 70s and what
happened are not always one and the same.

We had a debate here sometime back about a plane that I flew in Korea and later
went to SEA to shoot down a couple of MiGs. Supposedly that plane wasn't even
at the base I was at but my official flight records show that I did indeed fly
it.

Having been involved with a couple of accident boards as well, I can tell you
that if the official record, for the USAF at least, is 90% accurate, it is a
wonder.

The process we are centering our debates around starts out with personal
recollections, partially inaccurate records, subjective conclusions then a ll
that suddenly becomes fact. Like saying that I heard Dan Blather say it on TV,
so it must be true.

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything else.

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52 aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52 aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.
--

-Gord.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process. "I seen this big ol' airyplane sort of wallowing around and
it looked like he was on fahr. There was smoke coming off of his wings
an' his motor was sputtering and like all choked up. Then his back
winder sort of just blew off that thang and he jumped out right after
that."


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

Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 4/24/04 9:39 AM Paci

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For
example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52
aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally
I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight

And whathapopens in the cases where the only accounts you have are first hand
eye witness accounts??? Then what?


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

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.