A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A-4 / A-7 Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old October 14th 03, 12:10 AM
redc1c4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daryl Hunt wrote:

"dvick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...
In article , Daryl

Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by

Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner

remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During

the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint

force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the

bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that

claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of

the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.


I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.


we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.

redc1c4,
not likely, but there's always one optimist in the crowd.... %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"
  #72  
Old October 14th 03, 02:25 AM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"dvick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl

Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote

in
message
...
In article , Daryl

Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by

Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done

by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner

remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10

because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of

course)

Tell the USAF that:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's

air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look

Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32

During
the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint

force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of

the
bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that

claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's

air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look

Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10

arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80%

of
the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it?

This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.


I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes

on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no

longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.


we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.


Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't
make it any less.

We have beaten this to death.

Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts.



  #73  
Old October 14th 03, 03:07 AM
redc1c4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daryl Hunt wrote:

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"dvick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...
In article , Daryl

Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote

in
message
...
In article , Daryl
Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done

by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10

because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of

course)

Tell the USAF that:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's

air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look

Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32

During
the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of

the
bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's

air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look

Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10

arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80%

of
the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it?

This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes

on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no

longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.


we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way.


Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't
make it any less.

We have beaten this to death.

Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts.


now you're channeling V-Man? you are desperate..........

who is Keyser Sose, BTW? %-)

redc1c4,
permanent party here @ FSB UMA
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"
  #75  
Old October 16th 03, 06:12 AM
redc1c4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(massive snipage, fore and aft)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
Buckley in the late 50s.


so i asked the folks who would know:

To: AFHSO Research
Subject: P 38 Lightning question

when was it pulled from active duty?

their reply:

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):

thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:

were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
front
line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:

they said:

I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
reserve
units.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.

either that, or you're a congenital liar.

redc1c4,
(yes, this is a SPNAK! %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"
  #76  
Old October 16th 03, 07:11 AM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

(massive snipage, fore and aft)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out

of
Buckley in the late 50s.


so i asked the folks who would know:

To: AFHSO Research
Subject: P 38 Lightning question

when was it pulled from active duty?

their reply:

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):

thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:

were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
front
line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:

they said:

I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
reserve
units.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.

either that, or you're a congenital liar.


I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight come
from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except, "Plane"
in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that
it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.
I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
reserve
units

means that they don't have that information available either way. So, you
piece of mudslinging, sucking garbage, crawl back under your rock.




  #77  
Old October 16th 03, 07:54 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...



I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight

come
from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except,

"Plane"
in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that
it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.


From
http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp

"The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type
was phased out of service in 1949."

Keith


  #78  
Old October 16th 03, 09:44 AM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...



I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight

come
from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except,

"Plane"
in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that
phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so

that
it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again.


From
http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp

"The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type
was phased out of service in 1949."


Yes. The operative word was Active Duty. Buckley Air Field was Guard up to
2001. Buckley has just recently become and Active Duty AFB in 2001.

Your information does coincide with the aholes info.

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Front line usually means Active Regulars. But to make a point, look up the
reasons that the P-47, P-51 and the P-38 was shoved into holes during Korea.
In order to get the P-80s, they had to get rid of the Prop Jobs. That would
place all of them well past 1949. Of course,

The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They
were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you get
a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as
well.

The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea
before they were replaced.

There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
buried many of them to get the new jets.



  #79  
Old October 16th 03, 01:47 PM
David Casey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:44:56 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough
to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the
Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the
buried many of them to get the new jets.


You should email these folks to help them set their records straight:

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

B Co, 404th Signal Battalion,
404th Infantry Division (Lemming)
"We *are* UMA!"
  #80  
Old October 16th 03, 03:05 PM
Replacement_Tommel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , redc1c4 says...

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(massive snipage, fore and aft)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
Buckley in the late 50s.


so i asked the folks who would know:

To: AFHSO Research
Subject: P 38 Lightning question

when was it pulled from active duty?

their reply:

The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to
private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to
Honduras.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"):

thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up:

were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of
front
line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?:

they said:

I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or
reserve
units.

Air Force History Support Office
Reference and Analysis Branch
AFHSO/HOR


so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back
in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions
are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic.

either that, or you're a congenital liar.

redc1c4,
(yes, this is a SPNAK! %-)
--


IIRC when WWII was over the USAF had a choice between scrapping the P-51 or
scrapping the P-47, since the P-51 was a "sexier" plane, they chose the P-51
(desiginated F-51 later on). When Korea rolled around, the prop jobs were
assigned CAS duties. The Navy and the Marines were using air-cooled Corsairs
(not the SLUF Daryl, the original one - the bent wing bird) and enjoyerd a
greater success with them than the USAF did.

Why?

Because an air-cooled engine is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a
liquid-cooled engine is.

BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is full of
it...

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 02:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.