Rumsfeld and flying

George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
experience war.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Every one of those dirty, bearded,
fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled Vietnam vets left this country as clean-cut
American kids. Many of them may well have been volunteers as well. We as a
society are responsible for failing to adequately equip them to cope with the
conditions we were going to throw them into. If they were weak-willed to start
with, they should have been weeded out and not sent there to be destroyed by the
experiences they were exposed to. You can't blame the victims for having become
victims. Who in his right mind would consciously choose to come back so badly
damaged if they could have handled it or otherwise avoided it?

I know some of the type being refered to here and I assure
you, they were pretty much screwed up *before* heading off to
Vietnam. Have no idea what the percentage were and certainly
the war messed up good people.

It's been said military service in general can either straighten
you out or really screw you up!

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
compared to previous American wars; something like 20 or so for
the Army, as opposed to 24 or so during WWII and perhaps 26-28
for Civil War.

I'm probably off in absolute age values here but my point
is that the American Vietnam war soldier was youngish, and
that might contribute towards combat experience being a more
mind scrambling experience, if indeed Vietnam vets have minds
more scrambled than vets from other wars Americans have fought.

I might add that the treatment of at least some of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
not always as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.


SMH

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: "Jim Baker"
Date: 3/7/04 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: "Pete"
Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2

You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the
military
outweigh...

The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
volunteered
for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for.
The
Air
Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what
they
volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for.
Maybe
some
of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
possibility?


Arthur Kramer

Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military.
There's
no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into
an
aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the
war
goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't
get
into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than
wars
lasting many years.

JB
Bomber Pilot (ret)




That is the first rational post on the subject yet. Thanks. What did you
fly?


Arthur Kramer

Just back from a drive down the coast. What a beautiful day in SoCal.

I flew T-38s, B-52s and B-1Bs.

Another thing I noticed in your posts Art. You have a problem with
Instructor Pilots who haven't been to war. In the USAF of the mid '70s on,
there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
the standards in the syllabus, so their studs could pass their checkride,
and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments. The IPs that
had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many of them were,
where mission qual training was being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
real world. But, c,est la guerre! (sp?)

JB

"Stephen Harding" wrote

It's been said military service in general can either straighten
you out or really screw you up!

Mostly it screws you up so the "new" liberals in Congress can't
deal with you any more...

Stephen Harding wrote:

Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: "Jim Baker"
Date: 3/7/04 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time

nother thing I noticed in your posts Art. You have a problem with
Instructor Pilots who haven't been to war. In the USAF of the mid '70s on,

I have no problem with them at all. But their students might. That is what my
question was about. I was a bombardier navigator (MOS 1035). Pilot training is
totaly out of my expertise.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:22:16 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I've got nothing to be humble about in that regard.

Of course not.

Stephen Harding wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote:


We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]


Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in Japan,
the last three of which were at Tachikawa.

Yeah I remember you said you were there.

We were in Tachi from ? 1962 through August 1965. My Dad was
LtCol with the 22nd TCS flying the C-124. He retired on coming
home.

After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th TCS, a
tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady, down near
Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the 124s were all
grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our 46s and the 54
squadron were all there was available for intra-theater traffic in and out of
Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a Flying Training Squadron which
eventually turned our aircraft over to the Japan Air Self Defense Force. We had
the distinction of being among the very few AF people in the world who ever flew
airplanes with the Rising Sun insignia on them.

Sorry if I've rambled.....thought you might be interested in some of the stuff
that happened before your time there.

George Z.


SMH

"D. Strang" wrote in message news:gTI2c.11947$m4.7266@okepread03...
The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation


Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
landing in North Vietnam -- they were suspicious of and even reluctant
to accept technicians for training and logistics, although obviously
they had to compromise. What Uncle Ho wanted, above everything else,
was all potential foreign interference to get out of Vietnam as soon
as possible.

It's often forgotten that because China and the Soviets armed their
client to the teeth, it assured that Hanoi would not be bullied by
them either. That theory was tested when China tried to invade Vietnam
after the United States pulled out.


"Better to sniff French ****
for a while than to eat China's
for the rest of our lives"
~ Ho Chi Minh

Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
landing in North Vietnam -

About 320,000 Chinese served in Vietnam during the "American War", and
they took 5,300 casualties, including 1,100 killed.

About 22,000 Russians served in Vietnam, with one source saying that
18 were killed. Some 885 were pilots, who likely engaged in combat.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

Of the Americans who died in Vietnam, 18.3 percent were 17-19 years
old, 38.5% were 21-22 years, 18.9 percent were 23-24 years, 14.3
percent were 25-29 years, and 10.0 percent were 30 years or older.

So the median was about 21 and a half.

There are no average age figures for those who served; the closest you
can come is to take deaths as a proxy.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com