VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't
called
"FB-15" either.

I already admitted to that about 7 years ago. But you are playing into
the
404thk00ks game here. No, it wasn't but it easily could have been since
all
others before it carried that designation. But when you put a B up
there
certain agreements with the Soviets became in question. The FB was
dropped

Funny but in a previous post you claimed the USAF never used the FB
designation.
Of course in other posts you claimed they had.

Wrong. You are confusing what you drivel with what I report. Now, go back
to playing with leturd and wrecking yet another Military NG that you
404thk00ks are so infamous in doing.



and never returned even though you can nuke load out many fighters today
and
use them for ground attack as well. You will note that the FA
designation
is pretty well gone as well.

That would be news to the USN and the USMC F/A-18 drivers

No news here. They know the days of the FA is limited to never return.
That will be the last AC that will carry that designation. Much like the FB
was phased out for exactly the same reason. The new Superhornet is classed
as a Multirole Fighter now that the F-14 is gone. I won't bother explaining
to you the system since you don't have the capacity to understand it anyway.

I can see it now, 40 years in the future, someone will say that there used
to be FA Aircraft and some idiot like you will go into the same routine that
you are now over the FB.

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled


but if you dig a bit deeper, you will find the old MD pages that
clearly calls it a Fighter/Bomber.


and the link to them is ??????

Post at least 7 years ago and 6 and 5 and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 as well. Go
find it yourself.

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear
bombers of
the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one.
Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a
Nuke
loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5
when
Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational
support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of
the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing
converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to
standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat
Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of
it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your
lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level
troll.
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

You mean the F-110A ?
Or the F-4C
Or the F-4D and E ? The F-4B being a USN aircraft

Fact is daryl when you start down this path folks might start to think
perhaps you never were in the USAF.

Actually, those folks that spent any time around the early days of the
jets
know better and know exactly what I am debating. What is clear is that
the
404thk00ks are infesting another

You mean like those who actually flew them ?
The one's who have not aggreed with you on your claim ?





I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered
once
again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got
demoted
back
to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any
and
all
criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn.


Fact is daryl Yeff pulled up a quote from someone who was there and
actually flew the aircraft.
I'm sorry it does not agree with what passes for fact in your
universe.

The fact remains that everyone needs to take a look at a few military
ngs
that you and your other 404thk00ks have laid to waste. us.military.army
us.military.history alt.folklore.military us.military.national-guards,
and
a few more. All have been laid to waste. And there is no way of know
how
many Military Message Bases that you have helped to destroy or have the
404thk00ks locked out of. But it might be entertaining for others to
get a
gander at the aftermath.

I see in your haste to beat a retreat from a claim you try to obscure
things.
Fact is daryl, you were wrong.
How hard is it for you to admit that ?

Now you are claiming to be a Pilot back in those days? Sure, Sure. In
another life right?

Now, thank you for playing Bowling for Breadloaves. You can pick up your AK
at the door on your way out to bomb yet another Military NG. Go back to
Leturd.

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
Well let's see......

If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then
there
must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that
bird).

Now, there was that short lived F4H.....

I never said the designation was actually given to it. The 4 was the
first
to not carry it. I did state the MD classed it as such. You are just
helping the 404thk00ks to destroy another NG, they have a long list of
Military NGs that they have laid waste to. Be careful.


Amazing, old "Selective Recall" himself has trouble remembering what he
claimed.

You're simply a lying asshole, Hunt, a gormless ****** of minimal ability
to
comprehend, grotesque incapacity to glance at reference material, and less
intelligence.

So MD (?) called it a fighter bomber. Quaint, since McDonnell designed
and
built it back when it was the F4H (and before there wasa
McDonnell/Douglas),
because it couldn't be the F4D, because Donald Douglas's stable already
hasd
that lovely bat-winged but short legged AW bird, the Skyray, while
McDonnell
had the "passing lamented by few" F3H Demon, and the Phantom II (You don't
remember the Phantom 1, the FH-1 or the Banshee, second of the line?).

Incidentally, you silly twit...

The F4 was designed as a carrier based All Weather Interceptor, as
originally configured with no ability to drop ordnance, simply fuel tank
pylons, pylons/racks for the AIM-9 and a belly configured to nestle
Sparrow
IIIs comfortably. The first real big time "combat environment" deployment
came after October, 22, 1962, to Key West, VF-101 IIRC, in a pure
interceptor role.

Thanks for showing you are an idiot.

Thank your for playing bowling for idgits. You can pick up your parting
gift of dog **** on the way out the door.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
link.net...
----------
In article . net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's
involvement
in
the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified
document
was
leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing.

Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;')

Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the
United
States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence
officers
currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the
belief
in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free
press
that
can publish information that the government does not want released.

It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to
the
press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people
who do
it
get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or
lose
their
security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has
gone to
jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is
currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to
convict
two people for accepting classified information and making if
public.
Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question.

Put it this way:

Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a
foreign
govt.
He goes to jail for espionage.

Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a
newspaper
and
gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment.
It is
highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth
remembering
that
top level officials leak classified information all the time.
People in
the
White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House
look
better. That's how the game is played in Washington.)

The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to
them.

If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS
website
and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin.
You'll
get a
sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified
information.

I may give them a look.

Read up on the AIPAC case.

If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then
it's
untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll.

tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.

redc1c4,
then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to
remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with
the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5
designations for the camera and recce version.
http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning

My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that
disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural.

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.

I've been following the overall thread with interest; good points made, and
some neat facts brought out.

As a former artillery forward observer, who had to be pretty good at target
recognition (it seemed sometimes that half the documents I packed around
were recognition sheets and manuals), may I mildly point out that not every
soldier (sailor, airman, marine etc) is an avid enthusiast of military
vehicles (whether that be AFVs, aircraft, artillery, engineering equipment,
trucks etc) and hence to *them* a lot of things do look alike.

These recognition manuals get printed for two reasons - one, for the people
who genuinely really, really as part of their MOS need to be good at
recognition, and two, for the more casual user who hopefully won't fire
their ATGM at the wrong AFV or start shooting at the wrong helicopter if
they've gotten a few clues that some enemy things look sort of like some of
our things.

I'll agree that I myself would not, for example, mistake the above three
aircraft. But I can think of comparisons where that could easily happen, or
could have happened, or has happened, in all of the categories of military
vehicles.

It's also not just an issue of being _wrong_ - sometimes it's seeing an
aircraft or AFV for the first time at 5000 metres, and in the case of the ac
moving fast or high, and simply not knowing *what* it is...hence the
manuals, so you can scramble through them and try to figure out what you
see.

I happen to be a military history enthusiast myself, and this also aids in
target recognition, and always has. But I found during my time in the
Marines that very few of my enlisted peers were also military
history/technology enthusiasts (except for the technology that they were
using themselves), and hence that broad, studied base of dozens of reference
books simply did not exist for them...they were a tabula rasa at the time
they enlisted, and identifying vehicles, aircraft and equipment is a
time-consuming skill.

I'm sure that everyone in this thread remembers how to many Allied soldiers
in WW2 every German tank was a Tiger. While this is no doubt exaggerated, I
have no doubt that many Allied troops in Normandy, spotting a long-barrelled
MkIV at 1500 or 2000 metres, probably did think it was a Tiger.

The point I am trying to make is, it's easy to get so caught up in one's own
knowledge of vehicle recognition that one forgets that most people aren't
that good at it.

AHS

and if Ed said he made the mistake, anyone could, and undoubtedly did.

i know i've mis-ID'd the odd item, now and then, and people weren't
even shooting at me at the time.

redc1c4,
flash cards and RL are *not* the same thing. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

On Apr 29, 6:18 pm, AUK Registrar wrote:
In , redc1c4



wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"DDAY" wrote in message
hlink.net...
----------
In article . net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement
in
the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document
was
leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing.

Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;')

Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United
States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers
currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the
belief
in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press
that
can publish information that the government does not want released.

It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the
press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do
it
get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose
their
security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to
jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is
currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to
convict
two people for accepting classified information and making if public.
Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question.

Put it this way:

Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign
govt.
He goes to jail for espionage.

Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper
and
gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is
highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering
that
top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in
the
White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look
better. That's how the game is played in Washington.)

The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them.

If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS
website
and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll
get a
sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified
information.

I may give them a look.

Read up on the AIPAC case.

If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's
untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll.

tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.

I'd rather hear about the geosynchronous satellite over the Kamchatka
Pennisula

redc1c4,
then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-)

The list is sizeable. Enough for kicks and giggles for several months.

esto.nasa.gov/files/1999/Pieri.pdf -

http://esto.nasa.gov/adv_planning_studies_archive.html

In article ,
mumbled

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
Well let's see......

If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then
there
must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that
bird).

Now, there was that short lived F4H.....

I never said the designation was actually given to it. The 4 was the
first
to not carry it. I did state the MD classed it as such. You are just
helping the 404thk00ks to destroy another NG, they have a long list of
Military NGs that they have laid waste to. Be careful.


Amazing, old "Selective Recall" himself has trouble remembering what he
claimed.

You're simply a lying asshole, Hunt, a gormless ****** of minimal ability
to
comprehend, grotesque incapacity to glance at reference material, and less
intelligence.

So MD (?) called it a fighter bomber. Quaint, since McDonnell designed
and
built it back when it was the F4H (and before there wasa
McDonnell/Douglas),
because it couldn't be the F4D, because Donald Douglas's stable already
hasd
that lovely bat-winged but short legged AW bird, the Skyray, while
McDonnell
had the "passing lamented by few" F3H Demon, and the Phantom II (You don't
remember the Phantom 1, the FH-1 or the Banshee, second of the line?).

Incidentally, you silly twit...

The F4 was designed as a carrier based All Weather Interceptor, as
originally configured with no ability to drop ordnance, simply fuel tank
pylons, pylons/racks for the AIM-9 and a belly configured to nestle
Sparrow
IIIs comfortably. The first real big time "combat environment" deployment
came after October, 22, 1962, to Key West, VF-101 IIRC, in a pure
interceptor role.

Thanks for showing you are an idiot.

Thank your for playing bowling for idgits. You can pick up your parting
gift of dog **** on the way out the door.


hjahahahahahahahahaaaaa

Daryl, you are a gem


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled


there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if
it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

You were 3 or 4.
I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.

We arn't discussing what he said.
What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.


Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.

I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear
bombers of
the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one.
Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a
Nuke
loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5
when
Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational
support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of
the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing
converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to
standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat
Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of
it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your
lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level
troll.
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they
haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

You mean the F-110A ?
Or the F-4C
Or the F-4D and E ? The F-4B being a USN aircraft

Fact is daryl when you start down this path folks might start to think
perhaps you never were in the USAF.

Actually, those folks that spent any time around the early days of the
jets
know better and know exactly what I am debating. What is clear is that
the
404thk00ks are infesting another

You mean like those who actually flew them ?
The one's who have not aggreed with you on your claim ?





I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered
once
again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got
demoted
back
to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any
and
all
criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn.


Fact is daryl Yeff pulled up a quote from someone who was there and
actually flew the aircraft.
I'm sorry it does not agree with what passes for fact in your
universe.

The fact remains that everyone needs to take a look at a few military
ngs
that you and your other 404thk00ks have laid to waste. us.military.army
us.military.history alt.folklore.military us.military.national-guards,
and
a few more. All have been laid to waste. And there is no way of know
how
many Military Message Bases that you have helped to destroy or have the
404thk00ks locked out of. But it might be entertaining for others to
get a
gander at the aftermath.

I see in your haste to beat a retreat from a claim you try to obscure
things.
Fact is daryl, you were wrong.
How hard is it for you to admit that ?

Now you are claiming to be a Pilot back in those days? Sure, Sure. In
another life right?

Nope, not claiming to have been apilot at all.
That is your poor reading skills once again leading you down a garden
path of illusion.

A couple of folks in here, Ed Rasemus to note one have told you that you
are wrong.
I tend to defer to his word, he DID fly them.
If you have some beef with his account then take it up with Ed.
I'm sure he wouldn't mind spanking you, again.


Now, thank you for playing Bowling for Breadloaves. You can pick up your AK
at the door on your way out to bomb yet another Military NG. Go back to
Leturd.



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."