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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
SteveM8597 wrote: Relative to the "experts" I guess people like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings are experts with the true facts because they have interviewed people like Saddam Hussain. I'm not sure that I would give an interview with 'people like Saddam Hussein' much more credibility than an interview with Michael Jackson. If his offical spokesman is anything to judge by a large amount of offical information from his government was outrageous fiction. Remember the widely reported "Jenin massacre' which the media fell for and reported around the world? Later turned out to be a hoax despite the 'facts' quoted by the media. Dave |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity. Please don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both Eschmann's and Michel's book and I don't believe Eschmann intentionally mislead anyone in his book, he conducted very detailed interviews of participants and used official USAF documents. Michel went a step further. He confirmed through both Soviet and Vietnamese sources that they had no LOW BLOWs in country before 1975, thus dispelling the "hybrid radar" myth. As far as dispelling the MiG shootdown, Michel again went one step further and inteviewed Vietnamese Air Force officers and was allowed access to their official documents. Michel concluded there were no MiG-21s in the area of the BUFFs on either night. Michel also concluded they were probably shooting at F-4s who dived away, but Ed questions that aspect. I believe the exact circumstances of those two incidents will never be known. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well. Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn. What makes this more interesting Ed is that you and Steve have exact opposite views on the accuracy of two books on the same subject. Steve feels Eschmann's book is spot on and Michel's fails the accuracy test. What's that you were saying about eyewitness accounts BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
We're beginning to get really convoluted here. Now, your statement
regarding 100 trucks is caveated with some as yet undisclosed location within the country criteria. From my original post I had explained the "hundred or so trucks" were dealing with vehicles stationed and operated on the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. I have never wavered on that criteria and have know reiterated it once more. A truck delivering war material in the PRC buffer isn't a truck? No, it's a truck. Or it isn't war material? I'm sure it was hauling war material, most likely to Hanoi. Or they had to unload it and then put it on a different truck for the rest of the trip? BINGO. The trucks that operated on the Ho Chi Mihn Trail were stationed, maintained and operated on the trail. Many had major modifications to increase their clearence capability and nearly all had suffered some kind of battle damage. Were some trucks brought down from Hanoi to work the trail? I'm sure on occasion they were, but the Ho Chi Mihn trail didn't operate like the US Highway system where a truck loads up at point A and delivers goods to point B. In the case of supplies moving into SVN, typically the final destination was point AA and delivered via bicycle. When you made the initial comment Ed about the NVN supply system, I thought you were specifically talking about the Ho Chi Mihn trail. Didn't you refer to supplies into SVN? If so, and there were only a 100 or so going down the trail, there there should have been massive storage areas and trans-shipment points. Define "massive". There were trans-shipment points and troop rest areas every 9 miles. According to Lt. Gen. Harold Moore; "Each camp, which could shelter a company of troops, consisted of a series of crude bamboo huts dispersed along a half-mile of trail to make a smaller target for warplanes." So, the "hundred or so trucks" hauled supplies to VC Yes. And their NVA cohorts operating south of the DMZ. and the three division offensive had thousands of other trucks? Yes. Or, they three divisions carried their logistic goodies in their rice bags? They did a lot of that as well, but not nearly as much as the guys/gals moving down the Ho Chi Mihn trail. And, I just Googled Freedom Porch, since I'd never heard of it. No hits. I then checked Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses" where he has a list of names of operations. No hit. Then I pulled Thompson's "To Hanoi and Back". No hit.Got Freedom Train, but no Porch. There were actually two Freedom Porch Operations, with Freedom Porch Bravo being the bigger one. Bravo was the first time B-52s struck targets in NVN. Check out this web site: http://www.hdart.com/powmia.html It gives a very good synopsis, here's just one part; "During the North Vietnamese spring offensive in 1972, Allied air power was called on to turn the tide. The U.S. Air Force response to the invasion was immediate as B-52 Arc Light missions and tactical air attacks intensified during brief respites in the weather. The invasion was checked, but the lessons learned lead to Operation Freedom Train against targets south of the 20th Parallel, and later to Freedom Porch Bravo against targets in the Hanoi/Haiphong area. The first wave of Freedom Porch Bravo strikes began on April 16,1972, and achieved respectable success over the highest threat areas within North Vietnam. The first wave consisted of B-52 strikes supported by Navy and Air Force tactical air." What was that you were saying about us guys from the "back of the library"? I believe Clodfelter also discusses, in pretty good detail, Freedom Porch Alpha and Bravo in his book. They were JCS directed. Don't know where you got the idea that "the military took the order and turned it into as sound a military operation as they could." Uhh, the Joint Chiefs of Staff *are* military or am I misunderstanding you here? Since SAC wasn't chopped to 7th AF, where below the JCS did this selection of critical targets get done? Both SAC and 7th AF nominated targets to the JCS targeting board, the JCS put them through the "White House filter" during the Johnson years and pretty much rubber stamped them during Nixon's years. The problem is, by DEC 72, there were very little "critical targets" left and by Day #6 there were nearly zero. The only critical targets remaining were SAMs, radars On day #6, I orbited Bullseye for 25 minutes at six thousand feet over a solid undercast. Not a single defensive reaction was observed. Both the standing order on SAM engagements and the undercast made that possible. I'm confused are you trying to say that we had destroyed *all* "critical" targets after night #5? If so, you would be helping make my point. Ahh, at last, grounds for agreement. All military operations have political strategic objectives. They also have military tactical objectives. They sure do, and sometimes the two don't depend on each other. That was true for LBII and at least two raids I flew during OAF. It was accomplished from 1965 through the end of the war with remarkably little visibility. Not according to Chuck Horner who points out several times in "Every Man a Tiger" that the construction of SAM sites was nearly always detected, but off limits to bombing till it was complete. I've heard that dozens of times from F-105 crews on nearly every documentary on the Vietnam War. SAM battalions relocated regularly and were resupplied consistently. They seemed to be well supplied with missiles throughout. I'd imagine resupplying Guideline Missiles in the middle of the jungle is much easier than in more suburban areas. In Michel's book the SA-2 commander spelled it out pretty clearly. I guess you don't believe him. What reason would he have to lie? If, as Steve and I contend, the NVN ran out of missiles or was constrained in their reaction by day 6 of LB II, it was because of the destruction of roads, bridges, railroads, marshalling areas, etc. Not according to the guys commanding and operating the SAM sites. Michel's account of the night 11 attack on Trai Ca is different than you list here. He mentions the target and states that the A/C reported eight SAMs fired, but doesn't indicate damage. I got that from my thesis, unfortunately, it was not a direct quote and not "foot noteable" (at least to my prof it wasn't, he didn't "ding" me for failing to document sourcing for that paragraph) so I'm not sure which one of my sources I used. Sorry, but I'll have to take your word on it about Michel, I lent my copy out. And, what is the distinction between a "Guideline and tactical varients (sic)"? Guideline would be a Strategic SAM, so would a Goa or a Gammon. A Gainful or Gecco would be tactical SAMs. Was this not common lexicon in the 70s and 80s? Let's keep in mind that the tactical crews (and after the first three nights with 9 BUFFs lost the SAC crews as well) had several hundred associates on the ground in captivity. Locations of damage wasn't random I have never said it was, that's Steve putting words in my mouth. and precise targeting was essential if we weren't going to kill the POWs as well. As well as civilians, Nixon was adamant that we not supply congress a reason to cut short their holiday break. This concern for collateral damage was the reason the B-52s (at least the Guam based B-52s) had the ridiculous, "no maneuvering on the bomb run" order. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
You are
putting a lot of energy into trying to convince me of something and I am not sure of exactly what. That Linebacker II didn't "win the war". You made earlier statements that I challenged that NVN only had 100 old French trucks left over from WW II. No, I said they only had a hundred or so old French trucks being used to supply forces in SVN, working the Ho Chi Mihn trail. I specifically stated I was not refering to trucks operating in NVN. You also stated that the BUFFS were sent north for political reasons. When the President directs it without knowing details about specific targets, what would you call it? You have contradicted yourself several times on that 100 truck statement including below. No, you have confused the issue. If you care (which I'm not sure I do anymore) read through my original posts on the truck subject. I have reiterated several times that I was *not* saying NVN had "a hundred or so old French trucks" *in total*. Most of the rest of what you wrote is telling me about how the BUFFS went after military targets, not politcal targets The fact that BUFFs were going "down town" was political, the guys at 13th AF and the JCS targeting board took a purely political objective and developed a sound military campaign. The only thing lost in that conversion is the fact that it really didn't matter for Nixon's ultimate objective if the Kihn No vehicle repair yard was destoyed or not, just that bombs went off close enough and didn't cause any large collateral damage issues. I've asked you twice and now I'll try a third time. If the NVN returned to Paris because of the damage inflicted from the bombing, what was hit and how was the damage effecting them? Dikes and dams are legit military targets Not always. Hospitals are not Not true, put a AAA piece on the roof or store arms there and its a legal military target. just to differentiate between what is legit and what is not. You can't really do that with absolutes, the specific situation dictates legality. If it were a case of absolutes, we wouldn't need lawyers in the Air Operations Centers. We certainly did enough dam busting in WWII and Korea. We also bombed city centers for very small military gains, doesn't mean it would pass the legality test. In the case of WWII the allies could claim reciprocity since the Luftwaffe began striking city area targets first. The dam busting in Korea was only legal because we claimed we were not targeting food production but using the water to flood airfields and destroy bridges. In Vietnam the dikes and dams would have been debateable legal military targets. I am trying not to be emotional here but it seems to me that under your logic, every flight in VN was ultimately for political reasons starting long before Rolling Thunder. On several occasions Johnson attempted to let the military develop a bombing campaign to achieve specific military objectives (with restrictions on bombing targets in Hanoi or even NVN itself), during one period Johnson gave the JCS the go to try to interdict supplies on the Ho Chi Mihn trail. Lots of luck, like I stated earlier, until the Easter offensive the VC and NVA forces in SVN required a mere 35 tons of supplies a day. This could be hauled in seven 2 1/2 trucks. How in the world are you going to shutdown over 80% of the trucking along a route like the Ho Chi Mihn trail? During Johnson's years the military attempted to go after NVN POL. The problem was it was so dispersed as to make targeting it nearly impossible. Johnson grew frustrated with failure and went back to his "target luncheons" and political bombing. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Poetic license. John Warden was not a particular friend of mine.
Wheeew.. He was a pompous ass. Can I get an AMEN? Note for your background that Chuck was an F-105 driver Yep, he had bomb load envy as well when I met him for the second time at KBAD in '96 MiG trapped at six hosing your brains out with his 37MM the memories are very explicit. The more emotional the situation, the less likely for memory accuracy....at least according to psychologists. Since it was me engaged with the MiG and not the flight lead, I'll lean heavily toward my perceptions as correct. Unless coroborated by other eyewitnesses, you may have the edge in accuracy, but not good enough to be used as a factual reference. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 Buying your book this weekend. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
BUFDRVR wrote:
I'd imagine resupplying Guideline Missiles in the middle of the jungle is much easier than in more suburban areas. In Michel's book the SA-2 commander spelled it out pretty clearly. I guess you don't believe him. What reason would he have to lie? You must be referring to SAM sites within SVN - because the trail through Laos was a friggin' moonscape (complete with overlapping craters-upon-craters) years before either LineBacker. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 02:36 PM |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |
Fire officer tops in field — again | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 08:37 PM |
Friendly fire pilot may testify against wingman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 09:32 PM |