If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver posted:
I read the post pretty much the same way. Understood...I focused on the first paragraph not the political note. I can appreciate your feelings WRT GWB, and I'm happy not to engage you on this topic. You have great day...I'm gonna go put some miles on my road bike. Juvat |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Well, I've got the distinct impression that the period in question is prior to your birth, but let me point out that there is a considerable difference between ANG and Army NG. During the SEA period, a lot of folks sought Guard duty specifically to avoid active Army draft service. But, to stretch the Guard responsibility to fit the mission and extensive training requirements of an ANG pilot is a significant move. I don't know why you'd think that. But no, I'm one of the baby boomers. Scott Peterson If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
I realize that second-hand accounts shared by "non-participants" is viewed with contempt by many on this NG so if you happen to fall into that category go ahead and stop reading now... Really having fun with this aren't you Marron?...you're showing a very ugly aspect of your mental makeup IMO, one where you're most comfortable when you have lot's of people that you can hate. I can see no other reason for taking such unreasonable offense at Gordon's very polite request awhile ago. You're actually a rather scary guy you know... -- -Gord. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Really having fun with this aren't you Marron?...you're showing a very ugly aspect of your mental makeup IMO, one where you're most comfortable when you have lot's of people that you can hate. I can see no other reason for taking such unreasonable offense at Gordon's very polite request awhile ago. You're actually a rather scary guy you know... Huh? You just love to argue about off-topic crap doncha' Gord? What does this have to do with what I posted about the Duece? -Mike (scary guy) Marron |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Peterson wrote in message ...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote: So I'd be willing to bet Scott would have no problem acknowledging the excellent service of the SEA volunteers. Well, since he is so willing to brush the entire 111th FIS, a unit that did contribute pilots to fly F-102's in Vietnam, with his "I hate GWB" brush, I would disagree that he demonstrates such willingness. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about this unit or their activities. Bullpoopie. "...throughout the Viet Nam era National Guard units were regarded as draft dodgers refuges. Specifically, the TxANG 147th fighter group was considered a "champagne" unit that was a refuge for the area's privileged." Your words, right? And the 111th was a component of the 147th FG, right? Was no longer a "first line aircraft"? Uhmmm...care to guess when the last F-102's left active duty? When? The last F-102's left active duty service (as interceptors, that is--they would later return in the guise of the QF-102) in 73, after the US had concluded the treaty with Hanoi What the heck does that treaty have to do with the service of the 102's? This is like saying that the F-102 was taken out of service after the 1973 Fords were announced. It's an absolutely true statement but also absolutely meaningless. It bears upon your assertion that there was no likelihood of the F-102's seeing combat during this period, as they were in your estimation truly second-line equipment. Be that as it may, what matter is that they were serving in a first line role through mid-73 with the AC, and still standing full alert even later with the ANG. If you look at my other post, I give better dates of when it went out of service. July 73 for the AC (57th FIS), and October 76 with the ANG (a HIANG unit). (source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...468/ch11-4.htm). They continued in ANG service for only a few more years (77 IIRC). So, throughout this period of the Vietnam conflict, the Dagger remained in "front line" service. I guess it all depends on what you mean by front line service. I think that suggesting that it was a front line aircraft past the mid sixties is more accurate. Huh? Not sure I follow the meaning of that last sentence. But suffice it to say that one of the more regular Bear hunting outfits was the *last* AC unit to lose its Deuces in July 73, which would seem to indicate that contrary to your theory that Bush was safely serving in an aircraft that was unlikely to see combat service, it was indeed seeing "front line" use during that period. It was the *first* US combat aircraft deployed to the RVN after the Tonking Gulf incident, and remained in theater throught the time of US major involvement. Not bad for Scott's "second echelon" fighter, as he would call it, no? Well, in Korea when the war broke out, some of the first aircraft deployed were P-51's, not jets. Not because they were the best, but because they were close. As far as remaining in theatre, it was pointed out that the total deployment was a total of 24 aircraft. Do you know the numbers for similar aircraft? For all we know, it may simply have been more trouble to return them than it was worth.....I don't know. So what? The NV threat did not require a greater force (that would generally have been considered a good thing, right?). No, that was NOT the question. The question was about F-102 service in Vietnam, period. Which Scott managed to fumble--but hey, that's excusable, we all make mistakes, and he admitted as much (which is better than a lot of folks hereabouts...). But he left the ballpark when he tried to go political and engaged in wholesale libel with his "the Guard was a haven for draftdodgers" crap. Wasn't it? Not in my opinion. Sure, there were those who joined the Guard in order to perform their service in a manner which was less likely to see them having to deploy; but there were a lot more folks who were already in the Guard when the war heated up and stayed the course. There were others, like my brother, who did their AC tours, to include many Vietnam veterans, and then joined the Guard after their return home. Do you classify either of these latter two categories as "draftdodgers"? What about the thousands of Guardsmen who just a few short years earlier were called up for the Berlin Crisis--were they draft dodgers as well? Or the thousands of Guardsmen who were activated to serve in Korea and Vietnam in 68? Let me give you a hint--a draftdodger took off for Canada, or strung educational deferrments together in search of a degree he really did not want, or made a half-assed gesture at joining ROTC and then canned it when he was safe and joined the protesters in Merry Ol' England--he did not don a uniform in the Guard or Reserves. That's certainly the way I remember it....and I knew a quite a few people who were in it for exactly that reason. They were not "draftdodgers" IMO. My brother served in the Guard at the very end of the Vietnam conflict--AFTER serving on active duty and pulling a year flying DUSTOFF missions out of Danang and Phu Bai...but hey, that tarbrush Scott was wielding casts a broad stroke, does it not? More power to him. There were a lot of personnel that came into the guard that way. In fact, to bring it back on subject, that was one of the few career paths for many of the F-102 pilots that were considered excess as the number of F-102 squadrons was reduced. Many of them were not going to be retrained on a newer aircraft. If they could find a NG unit that would take them, they could keep flying. But hey, gosh forbid they could have ended up in the "champagne group", upon which you heap scorn? And if you are willing to admit that "a lot of personnel" came into the Guard from the AC's, how do you then turn around and label it merely a haven for draftdodgers? ANG and ARNG units were serving in Vietnam as well, along with a few thousand former ARNG "individual replacements" (see what happened to the HIARNG infantry brigade that was activated....). Then we get the attempt to tar the entire 111th FIS because Scott does not like GWB; again, uncalled for. Again, not what I said. Then I guess "champagne unit" was a term of endearment? Not really. The F-102's went in when the curtain went up, and returned only when it went down. ANG F-102 folks played in the same sandbox as their AC counterparts. OK. ....and a list of their major accomplishments while there would be?????? # missions, troops killed, planes shot down, missiles fired. How about, "No enemy aircraft attempted to attack US installations while they were on duty"? Not a bad record. I believe you, or the author maybe, forgot another earlier example--the activation and deployment to Europe of various ANG fighter units as a result of the Berlin crisis earlier that same decade. I don't know if that's really a fair comparison. After all, that was less than 2 1/2 years after WWII ended. WWII ended in 1960?! I was referring to the activation of troops and airmen by Kennedy; a few ANG units made the trip across the big pond at that time. Richard bach, author of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", was one of those F-84F pilots so involved; he wrote a short book about one of his flights in Europe. OK. Just how did the states leverage this control? Appointing officers? Not really--they had to be vetted by a federal rec board before the appointments were effective. Training plans? Nope--that was controlled by the federal side. IET? Nope, because this was after it was decided that all NG personnel would attend AC IET. Money, organization, and/or equipment? Heck no--that was firmly the purview of the feds. So, where was all of this state control really manifested? Good question. I thought that through the 1980's the chain of command for the NG went to the Governor unless the unless the units had been federalized. And that chain has little meaning outside of the use of the Guard in a state active duty role for disaster response or riot control. The example that comes to mind was Eisenhower doing this to keep NG troops from being used by segratationist governors in the school integration efforts in the mid-1950's. By which both Eisenhower and later Kennedy established beyond a doubt that the Guard's first duty was to the nation. This does not exactly buttress your argument that the states' had some major control over the Guard, now does it? Gee, then why did they keep them in service over there throughout the war? Do you think if your opponent has a weak, but existant, air strike capability, then it is OK to ignore air defense? Good way to get a bloody nose (see what happened when we had B-29's caught on Saipan during WWII by that "remote" threat). It's a good question. In all seriousness, maybe it was simply easier to keep them there than return them. I've seen pictures of Davis-Monahan in this time frame, it was covered with little delta dots. There was no shortage of low-hour 102 airframes. Then one wonders why we brought them back after their duty was complete? Anyway, I did a quick search and apparently at least some of them were on alert sitting armed with the cockpits open. So someone expected some trouble and wanted them there. Apparently they also escorted some B-52 missions according to the SAC Museum. Yep. And undoubtedly examined a few bogies which were experiencing difficulties or were not sqawking proper IFF. The fact is that at least three were lost to enemy fire (in the air-- a few more were destroyed on the ground), so they had to be doing something. Brooks http://www.dposs.com/t_jensen-dab-bush-account-1965.htm Scott Peterson |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks posted:
Be that as it may, what matter is that they were serving in a first line role through mid-73 with the AC, and still standing full alert even later with the ANG. And again... July 73 for the AC (57th FIS), and October 76 with the ANG (a HIANG unit). Please allow me to apologize in advance if you are offended by the question...but what the heck is AC? You posted that several times and I'm sure it means Active C-something. I used AD for Active Duty or are slipping in some army jargon on us AF types? Juvat (curious minds want to know) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Juvat
writes Please allow me to apologize in advance if you are offended by the question...but what the heck is AC? Air Component? (may be too modern, I'm getting regular purple transfusions at the moment). Active Component? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Info on a P-51 mustang called "Spare Parts" | eg | Home Built | 3 | October 28th 03 02:02 AM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |