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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article , says... "David W" wrote in message ... DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake, the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ? They'll just screw it up so let me. How nice of you to make the claims again. I wouldn't want to mis-quote you. I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at FT Hood with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said that the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the 82nd until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a Guards head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they stopped the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit cocky and that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it true? You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could have happened. Does this pass the smell test ? That live ammo was on an exercise ? Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ? I'd say your "source" was bull****ting you. As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them lined up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment (power units). What they were doing there, I have no idea. IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ? Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired and placed in storage in 1968. BTW, how many did you see there at Groom Lake ? According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was FB-4. A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to the Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were counted as Bombers. Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik Turkey at one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4 since it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many major installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2 and doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them there. Lets see, I can't find a thing in McD's documentation showing where the F-4 Phantom II was ever called the "FB-4" And the funny thing is no on ever gave a similar designation to any of the other tactical fighter/bombers that were roled to carry "instant sunshine". Like the F-100 and F-105, or the F-104's I stated that I saw a flight of Aircraft flying overhead just outside of Denver that had twin booms. I was not too old then. I asked my Uncle (he retired from Lackland as the QA Chief as a GS-16 and 33 years) and he told me they were P-38s. Now who do I believe, an 33 year veteran from an AF Base dating back to 1942 or do I believe a bunch of Net Nannies that think that if it's not on the internet, it can't possibly exist. Oh, and let's not leave out that one supposedly contacted the Active Duty AF and asked if the P-38 was in the inventory in the 50s. Considering that there was NO Active runways with fighters on them for a few hundred miles, chances are they came from Buckley Air Field and the Actives would have no knowledge of what was there. Does this even sound right ? That the USAF wouldn't know what aircraft an Air Guard unit has ? As for the P-38s being in Korea, according to an old Fighter Jock from Korea, they were there and were replaced on a one to one basis due to combat losses with the new P-80s. Of course, most of those losses were ground mishaps. I even posted one URL (I don't care to netnanny to find it again) where the P-38 was used for recon in Korea. Makes sense considering the P-38 could cruise at over 400 mph at 40,000 feet. Physics dicates that the Mig-15 couldn't get there in time to stop it. It would be long gone before the Mig could get the altitude. Once again, your buddies like to just rave on about history that isn't on the Internet as most History isn't. But, if it's not on the Search Engines, it just can't exist. Funny thing is the USAF doesn't have any units with P-38 by 1947. All had converted to either P-51, P-47 or to jets. Funny how all those "P-38" that were combat losses didn't get recorded by the USAF. How come none are listed in any roster of aircraft losses during the Korean war ? I would direct you to the following link. http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm Can you explain why they list no P-38 losses ? Oh, and FWI, any remaining P-38 were redesignated F-38 in 1949..... And no there arn't any of those listed either. Now, go ahead and swarm away. But read the Charter before you do and know that your swarming is license for the trolls to exist in here in the levels that they are. Why not, it's accepted practice. The only troll(ette) around here is you daryl. As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other soldiers. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
FB-4. A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to the Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B designator from the F-111. Wit Not sure what the original designator of the Navy F-4 was. Could have been FB-4. Did the Navy have a nuclear role for the plane? The first AF version was an F-4B the AF called the F-110. Nearly all theF-4 wings in Europe sat nuke alert with real silver bullets. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , smartace11
@aol.com says... According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was FB-4. A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to the Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B designator from the F-111. Wit Not sure what the original designator of the Navy F-4 was. Could have been FB-4. Did the Navy have a nuclear role for the plane? F4H was the Navy desigation. The first AF version was an F-4B the AF called the F-110. Nearly all theF-4 wings in Europe sat nuke alert with real silver bullets. So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation. One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote: So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation. One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on. Please note that the FB-111 which SAC flew out of Pease and Plattsburgh was a different model entirely than the F-111A/D/E/F versions flown in TAC and USAFE. Larger wing, higher gross weight, different avionics. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article .net, says... As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other soldiers. I have, Ft Benning and other places. And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers in a training exercise is absurd. I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range. They shut the place down for two days to investigate. Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay T. Beatty" wrote in message hlink.net... "Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article .net, says... As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other soldiers. I have, Ft Benning and other places. And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers in a training exercise is absurd. I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range. They shut the place down for two days to investigate. Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control. "nAt Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army has been ordered to protect trees for the red-cockaded woodpecker by restricting bivouacking, live fire and digging of foxholes. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...le.cfm?Id=1181 " Well, going to go look up info on these LAW thingees. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jay T. Beatty wrote:
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article .net, says... As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other soldiers. I have, Ft Benning and other places. And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers in a training exercise is absurd. I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range. They shut the place down for two days to investigate. Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control. I've been through live fire exercises too but, we don't do them like the Soviets did where the fire is sometimes falling "danger close" or closer to the troops maneuvering. I think I would have heard about it too because in the 1980s my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an incident like that would have been as infamous as the one where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at NTC and got washed out. I've heard of them taking tanks over cliffs at night, the incredible sinking M113 and a few others that are pretty strange but never heard of this incident with the 82nd and the OKARNG. Snark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|