Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor.

When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?

Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you
think
the job is you have been assigned to do

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival. That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on. That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

In message , Typhoon502
writes
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the
worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival.

To a point, but it depends on mission, role and threat.

That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on.

True, but how does an "experienced bomber pilot" holding formation in
the box avoid barrage AAA? Can't change course or speed - you're in
*formation*. What else can you do except hold on and hope?

Tactical fighters (and ground combat troops, interestingly) have a well
documented survivability curve, rising rapidly in the early stages as
they learn to recognise and honour the threats (and according to some,
dropping towards the end of fixed-length tours - combat fatigue or
overconfidence? Don't know, but it's at least claimed)

But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fi each roundshot
fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
of aim and the flight of the shot.

Experience improved your chances of coming back after damage, fending
off fighter attack and avoiding loss by error (those weren't easy or
forgiving aircraft) but did nothing to reduce the odds of an AA shell
exploding within lethal distance of your aircraft.

That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.

Worth doing just about everywhere.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

Also no argument.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
NOT From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
[As anything I wrote had already been snipped]

The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?



Arthur Kramer

Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you
think
the job is you have been assigned to do

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think whoever wrote that meant that the decision to stay on or take
advantage of an opportunity for transfer while still alive depended
on the degree of one's commitment. Not that the odds of survival
depended on the degree of one's commmitment.

As someone who never faced combat I'll not criticize the decision or
commitment of anyone who did.

--

FF

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/15/2004 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over
on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that
certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how
different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer



True. But if you roll the same number 5 times in row a crap table, note how
everyone is shocked and the house will change the dice.The difference between
a mission and a crap table is that at the crap table a bad roll doesn't result
in death. And a mixture of targets results in a mixture of odds depending on
defenses. So not all missions are equal like dice rolls. But other than
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

Regnirps wrote:
Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event.

I'll take issue with this, Charlie.

While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.



Jeff

(Regnirps) wrote in message ...
(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).

Mr Kramer was speaking (correctly) about cumulative probablity whereas
the other argument was correct about the probability per event.

If you throw the dice twenty times the probability that you'll throw
snake eyes is higher than if you only threw them 10 times BECAUSE
the probability of throwing snake eyes is the same on each roll.

--

FF