Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

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

ubject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:59 PM

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.

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

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

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer

Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 7:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer

Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you
need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat
was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.




I only speak from personal experience. in WW II.



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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

[snip]

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.

Interesting analogy. In the age of linear tactics, infantry in
line were less vulnerable to artillery than in the square but
cavalry could make hash of them. And vice versa.
Had, for instance, the French cavalry at Waterloo had horse artillery
with them they might have been able to make an impression on the
British Squares. Cambronne and the Old(?) Guard weren't so lucky.
Had the clash of the Guards proceeded with the French column coming
in behind cavalry they might have been able to overrun a British
Guards square instead of being shot to pieces.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source