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 |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun. Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: Jack wrote: Harry Andreas wrote: Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza? Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo. I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most here, this being a military aviation newsgroup. You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun. I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be rolling in the aisles en masse. I've got a great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal. I'll be looking for it. My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually able to get some stick time in the RG;-) Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot of potential for disaster midway through a control swap. It's been so long I don't remember, although that does ring a vague bell. No doubt I'd remember better if I'd ever been able to get him to turn over control ;-) We used to come up the coast low over the ocean from Half Moon Bay to the City, pulling up to avoid the sailboats we didn't want to go around, before passing over the Golden Gate Bridge. A great flight when the fog wasn't a problem. Guy |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Jack wrote:
Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for a statistically significant comparison? The guys at Utapo did. Because they were much closer (than Guam) and the wing much smaller, most Utapo crews flew everyday and by the second week the guys at Utapo had collected a pretty descent group of "lessons learned". As far as a statistical comparison, its dificult to make because of several varying factors, not the least of which was the G models ECM suite which was much less capable than the D model. Additionally, because of their higher loss rates, after Night #5, the G models never went "downtown" again. In the end, out of the 15 aircraft lost during LBII, 7 were from Utapo and 8 from Andersen for an even split. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
|
#347
|
|||
|
|||
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/13/2004 5:07 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for 16 months: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif It does not show that he was AWOL. No, you have to draw that inference yourself. Walt Walt, for someone who claims to have been in the military you seem peculiarly ignorant of what a determination of AWOL is. AWOL means absent without official leave. Since AWOL is a crime under the UCMJ there would have to be documentation of it somewhere in his or JAG's records. If no one ever charged Bush with being AWOL he wasn't. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |