Daryl Hunt Rides Again (was [Admin] us.military.army FAQ M1A4 - Special Post -)

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.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"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.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


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.

The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
near, but not over, Plant 42.

However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
agreement with Tank Fixer.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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.

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.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

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.

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


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.

The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
near, but not over, Plant 42.

Thanks, DM claims to have seen them at Groom Lake in the 1970's pre-
flighted and with start carts.

However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
agreement with Tank Fixer.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

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

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.


I've never read such a biggest load of BS. The FB-111 and F-111 were exempt
from SALT. In similar fashion the SU-24 FENCER was also exempt. The
designation FB-111A to F-111G came about when they (FB-111As) were converted
eventually to serve in the tactical role when displaced from SAC. This had
nothing to do with SALT whatsover.

The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
there.

Absolute crap. The treaty covered heavy nuclear strategic bombers such as
B-52s and TU-95s not F-4s. If this was the case then why did the Turkish Air
Force continue with the dual key nuclear weapons delivery programme?

TJ

"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.