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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only apply to the B-52H. Hmm, according to my books on the BUFF, the 20mm cannon was a "stock item" on the H model. BUFDRVR You want to reread that first paragraph which reads "The defensive tail armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. " It says the .50s were used on EARLIER versions. My experience was with Ds and Gs. The 20mm was only on the H which is what my message said. Tex Houston |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote Comprende? 20+ posts in this thread, and still no information as to why you think the USAF 'dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG TIME!" Pete |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Tex Houston wrote:
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... I've copied two paragraphs from Joe Baugher's website and these only apply to the B-52H. Hmm, according to my books on the BUFF, the 20mm cannon was a "stock item" on the H model. BUFDRVR You want to reread that first paragraph which reads "The defensive tail armament was changed. The quartet of 0.50-inch machine guns carried by earlier versions was replaced by a single General Electric M61 20-mm six-barreled rotary cannon. " It says the .50s were used on EARLIER versions. My experience was with Ds and Gs. The 20mm was only on the H which is what my message said. Tex Houston Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive measure in recent times? Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )?? It's been a long time since I saw the flick. And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H model built before or after the movie came out? |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black. Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity. You have. As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a "crime" or a "sin" in your book as well? That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no argument to begin with. I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct? I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate. First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap. Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults in this thread alone: 1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret. It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for. Gee Dan, I thought you "dismissed" me? Guess not, huh? In any event, apologies accepted but I'm still wondering why you're so secretive when it comes to revealing your FULL name? Whattsup with THAT?? Afterall, you're retired and all so who cares? 2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals. I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said. It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act. Whatever. ISTR you accusing another poster of "confessing to a felony" and now here you are accusing my father and his friends of comitting "criminal acts." Now, I don't know what you job in the military was specifically, but you're deluding yourself if you think that you've impressed anyone here with your superficial knowledge of the law. 3) Calling my Father and his friends fools. I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool. Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it. He did not entrust me or any other unqualified person to his life support equipment. Thems YOUR words, not mine. There's a HUGE difference between allowing your 9 or 10 year old son to simply ride along in the launch truck along with all your equipment as opposed to "entrusting your life support equipment to an unqualified person." Now, I realize you're retired and all, but you really do need to get a life. I mean GET A LIFE!! 4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world. I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again, you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it. See above. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, huh? 5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is. I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such. Exactly. Just like it is my opinion that the USAF is partly to blame for not preventing the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks. I'm not the only person who shares that opinion in this country, BTW. I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan B2431.... POT. KETTLE. BLACK. (In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.) Comprende? None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you. Riiiiight. I am sorry you don't see the difference. Riiiiiiiiight. Please note you just called me a "santimonious hypocrite." Please note I have never attacked you presonally or called you names. You can attempt to spin it anyway you wish, but accusing my Dad of "committing criminal and/or foolish acts" and me of "having no idea what the USAF's job is" constitutes personal attacks in my book. I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None of this was a personal insult or attack. And you seem to have no comprehension what it's like to stand on the firing line for more than 12, long, agonizing months just waiting and wondering if your Dad has been shot down or killed in some steaming ******** SEA jungle....or taken prisoner....or WTF??!! It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an appropriate way for adults to debate. First, I'm not obligated to defend my opinions to YOU. Second, if you haven't noticed, I'm not interesting in having any "debate" with YOU. Anyone like YOU whose willing to sit and argue with someone like TARVER (of all people!) on the internet month after month after month is obviously someone who simply loves to argue for the sake of arguing. Ya' just can't win with guys like YOU, so thanks but no thanks! Feel free to go back to swapping drivel over "pitot tubes" and such with good ol' Tarv. Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and retract it. Again, thanks but no thanks. (Please see my response to Dweezil below...) Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Retired and perhaps a bit too much free time on your hands? *** After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms. As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on the flightline with Dad and his RO's carrying their chutes, kneeboards and helmet bags. I sat in the tower and listened to his radio conversations and watched until my neck was sore as my ol' man roared down the runway at Kingsley Field and pulled straight up 'till he was clean out of sight. Hell, I've even drank beer with him and his pilot buds and a few of the wise old maintenance types whom he fondly referred to as "Zebras." In other words, I have a pretty damn good idea of what the USAF's job is and to imply otherwise is offensive not only to me, but also the USAF. The purpose of this NG is to discuss all-things-military aviation, and that is all I am attempting to do. Anyone who knows me, or either of my two older brothers (not to mention my younger sister and my Mother, of course!) knows just how much we honor and respect the military and especially the USAF. If my remarks concerning 9/11 happen to offend you, I sincerely apologize. However, I remain convinced that the USAF was at least partly to blame for 9/11. Not unlike pre-Dec 7, 1941, the pre-Sept. 11, 2001 USAF (USAAF in '41) had become complacent and both the Japs AND those Islamic ****s ($1 to Juvat) simply caught us all napping on the job, so to speak. Like it or not, the horrific results of both surprise attacks at Pearl Harbor and NYC/Washington DC speak for themselves. But that's just my opinion, you're entitled to yours, of course. Nice day! *** |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message ... Is a tail gun necessary on a B52? Has one ever been used as a defensive measure in recent times? Also, refresh my memory, it was a B52 that Slim Pickens was dropped from in the movie ( as per BUFDRVR's signature )?? It's been a long time since I saw the flick. And as more of a side note, was BUFDRVR's H model built before or after the movie came out? The guns were used in North Vietnam 1972. After gunners were removed from crew (1991) the guns were gradually removed but only the guns. Remainder of firecontrol system retained. See my earlier messages, same subject line. Read the book never saw the movie. Do not know when it came out. As I remember the book, not a bit of it was like real life as I encounterd in the SAC Alert Force where I spent years and years. Tex |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:vhlLb.9549$6l1.6504@okepread03... Because the guys on the ground don't have the same kinetic energy to kill and bring down centers of commerce. ? |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Marron" wrote in message ... "mg" wrote: To blame the Air Force is like blaming the fire department for not stopping an arsonist. Poor analogy. The Air Force is not entirely to blame for what happened to 9/11, but it's not absolutely blameless either. Actually the fire department likely has a bigger role in stopping arsonist that the Air Force in investigating potential terrorist threats. In many areas the fire department is responsible for criminal investigation of arson and if it is a repeat offender they should have caught him last time. It was there to put the fire out (endless CAP mission ever since), but it could not have prevented it. Given better intelligence, the USAF could have easily prevented it. Yes, but the Air Force is not tasked with intelligence analyst of that nature. Rarely they'll be tasked with some of the gathering that requires their technical assets but in those cases they are more likely than not to have no idea why they are acquiring it. Or why not blame the Army for not having a AAA battery stationed in NY or DC. Or why not blame the Navy for not having a ship on the Potomac or in NY harbor that could have prevented it. Actually, you're absolutely right. Why not blame the Army or Navy? Because they too, are not very involved in that area. Well, actually, army & navy special forces might be involved if requested by civilian agencies. In what far fetched way could the USAF have prevented 9/11? A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981. Yes, with better intelligence the USAF could have preemptively targeted Ossama. But the Air Force would not have gathered the intelligence, the Air Force would not have analyzed the intelligence and the Air Force wouldn't have decided it sufficient to act upon. You are aware that the Army, Navy and Air Force are not allowed to launch preemptive strikes on their own? |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
From: Mike Marron
(B2431) wrote: Mike Marron wrote: Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black. Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity. You have. As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a "crime" or a "sin" in your book as well? That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no argument to begin with. I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct? I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate. First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap. Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults in this thread alone: 1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret. It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for. Gee Dan, I thought you "dismissed" me? Guess not, huh? In any event, apologies accepted but I'm still wondering why you're so secretive when it comes to revealing your FULL name? Whattsup with THAT?? Afterall, you're retired and all so who cares? I like my privacy and that of my family. 2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals. I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said. It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act. Whatever. ISTR you accusing another poster of "confessing to a felony" and now here you are accusing my father and his friends of comitting "criminal acts." Now, I don't know what you job in the military was specifically, but you're deluding yourself if you think that you've impressed anyone here with your superficial knowledge of the law. As I said before and you don't quote here you were talking about your father taking you out in a launch truck and I said that violated regs, the same regs that applied to me, and was therefore a criminal act. If your father came aboard any truck I was driving on the flightline and brought you along I would drive the both of you off the line to the nearest cop shack no matter what rank your father was. If in fact you were in the "tower" of any airbase and NOT accompanied by your father, assuming he had written authorrization to be there or was himself escorted, someone was committing a crime. Ref AFR 207-1 3) Calling my Father and his friends fools. I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool. Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it. He did not entrust me or any other unqualified person to his life support equipment. Thems YOUR words, not mine. There's a HUGE difference between allowing your 9 or 10 year old son to simply ride along in the launch truck along with all your equipment as opposed to "entrusting your life support equipment to an unqualified person." Now, I realize you're retired and all, but you really do need to get a life. I mean GET A LIFE!! You said you handled their parachutes and helmet bags. That's life support equipment. 4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world. I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again, you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it. See above. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, huh? Looking in a mirror? 5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is. I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such. Exactly. Just like it is my opinion that the USAF is partly to blame for not preventing the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks. I'm not the only person who shares that opinion in this country, BTW. But ALL the other people have come up with theories and/or supposed evidence to support their claims. You refuse to do anything beyond accuse an entire branch of dereliction of duty. I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan B2431.... POT. KETTLE. BLACK. (In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.) Comprende? None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you. Riiiiight. I am sorry you don't see the difference. Riiiiiiiiight. Please note you just called me a "santimonious hypocrite." Please note I have never attacked you presonally or called you names. You can attempt to spin it anyway you wish, but accusing my Dad of "committing criminal and/or foolish acts" and me of "having no idea what the USAF's job is" constitutes personal attacks in my book. But they are true. If they aren't sue me for libel and let the courts decide. I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None of this was a personal insult or attack. And you seem to have no comprehension what it's like to stand on the firing line for more than 12, long, agonizing months just waiting and wondering if your Dad has been shot down or killed in some steaming ******** SEA jungle....or taken prisoner....or WTF??!! What firing line? And what has that to do with this discussion? You are right, I never had to wait for a relative in combat. I WAS the relative in combat. It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an appropriate way for adults to debate. First, I'm not obligated to defend my opinions to YOU. Actually you ARE obligated to defend your vile accusation or retract it. Second, if you haven't noticed, I'm not interesting in having any "debate" with YOU. Anyone like YOU whose willing to sit and argue with someone like TARVER (of all people!) on the internet month after month after month And you are behaving exactly like tarver by making an accusation like you did when you blamed the USAF for 9/11 and making no attempt to back that up despite several people besides me asking. is obviously someone who simply loves to argue for the sake of arguing. Ya' just can't win with guys like YOU, so thanks but no thanks! Feel free to go back to swapping drivel over "pitot tubes" and such with good ol' Tarv. Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and retract it. Again, thanks but no thanks. (Please see my response to Dweezil below...) Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Retired and perhaps a bit too much free time on your hands? *** After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms. As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on the flightline with Dad and his RO's carrying their chutes, kneeboards and helmet bags. I sat in the tower and listened to his radio conversations and watched until my neck was sore as my ol' man roared down the runway at Kingsley Field and pulled straight up 'till he was clean out of sight. Hell, I've even drank beer with him and his pilot buds and a few of the wise old maintenance types whom he fondly referred to as "Zebras." In other words, I have a pretty damn good idea of what the USAF's job is and to imply otherwise is offensive not only to me, but also the USAF. The purpose of this NG is to discuss all-things-military aviation, and that is all I am attempting to do. Anyone who knows me, or either of my two older brothers (not to mention my younger sister and my Mother, of course!) knows just how much we honor and respect the military and especially the USAF. If my remarks concerning 9/11 happen to offend you, I sincerely apologize. However, I remain convinced that the USAF was at least partly to blame for 9/11. Not unlike pre-Dec 7, 1941, the pre-Sept. 11, 2001 USAF (USAAF in '41) had become complacent and both the Japs AND those Islamic ****s ($1 to Juvat) simply caught us all napping on the job, so to speak. Like it or not, the horrific results of both surprise attacks at Pearl Harbor and NYC/Washington DC speak for themselves. But that's just my opinion, you're entitled to yours, of course. Nice day! *** If you won't explain to me, and based on your vast knowledge of the Air Force mission, tell the rest of this NG how the USAF caused 9/11. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More drug allegations made, By USAF in Italy | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 23rd 03 11:31 PM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |
USAF Fighter-Attack SPO members from the 1980s? | R Haskin | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 03 12:06 PM |
USAF squadrons in 1985 | Bob Martin | Military Aviation | 4 | September 9th 03 05:46 PM |
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes | Ken Insch | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 03 02:36 AM |