Rumsfeld and flying

Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: "T3"
Date: 3/7/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m


"Pete" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote

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?

Not in the situation I laid, out, no. Higher HQ says go, you go. If they
say
stay here and do other stuff, that's what you do. You follow orders. There
is no AF Form or procedure called "I want to go" except for going on
active
duty in the first place.

The wing in question was the only one in USAFE to not send any
jets/pilots/maintainers. There was no question of 'volunteering'. We were
already on active duty. And we *all* wanted to go.

Similarly, not everyone on active duty during Vietnam saw action in SEA.
There was still a mission several thousand miles away in
Germany/England/Holland/Korea/Japan to handle.

Pete


There was a running joke in the '60's about a guy who got naked with only an
American flag who went down to the draft office and wanted to sign up for
duty in VN, they took one look at him and said
your f'ing crazy, to which he said write it down!!

T3

THINGS SAID IN JEST..........



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:

And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
his brothers in arms who were still in harms way.

Ed, I have a concern here. It may be that I misunderstand you, so please
don't take this personally.

It's often been said that people who didn't fight in Vietnam didn't have the
credibility to criticize the war. Now you suggest that those who did fight
aren't supposed to be critical either because it's disloyal. How then is
anyone allowed to oppose a war that they believe to be unjust? Surely we
have to have some way to do that or we suffer badly as a democratic society.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

George Z. Bush wrote:

I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider people
who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as undermining
their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting to save the lives
of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war. I wasn't one of them
at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see where I was wrong and
they were right.

Well there can be some self-fulfilling prophesy with this.
You don't feel a war is winnable, so work to end it, thus
losing it.

I'm certain there would have been people with such feeling
in WWII during the times the Japanese were running rampant
in the Pacific in 1941/42, or Russians in front of Moscow
in 1941, or Romans facing 10 years of Hannibal in Italy in
the 200's BC.

Current consensus seems to be that Vietnam was unwinable,
or, if it was winnable, it would require a level of brutality
from American arms that leaders of the time felt were not
acceptable.

Personally, I feel you should object to a war *before* you
get involved in it, not while it's underway and especially
not while it is tough going.

There was no clear cut decision to go to war in Vietnam (or
Korea) as I feel there really should have been. The ongoing
Iraqi adventure did have some discussion and vote although
not an official declaration.

Yet we have people here on the corner of my hometown in front
of the court house every weekend protesting the war and
occasionally doing their part for peace by blocking traffic.
Some of these people feel the war is unwinable, and thus
they are apparently great patriots in doing what they can to
help the US lose that war.

Kudos to them I suppose.


SMH

ubject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: Stephen Harding
Date: 3/7/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had
was a
combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know
what
it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat
except
for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that
Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a
change
for the better in flight training.

My father was an instructor with no combat experience.
I'm not certain what sort of instructor; basic I'd suppose.

He was all set to strap on a P-47 and destroy the LW single
handedly he once told me, but found to his great disappointment
that he'd been made an instructor!

As you have said, he too was afraid the war would be over by
the time he got there as it was, and now, he's saddled with
an instructors job!

Said he got a lecture by the CO saying how important good
instruction was, and that he would indeed be doing an
important part in destroying the LW.

He eventually converted to B-29s as a way to get to combat
in the Pacific, only to have that war end before he could
actually get there. "Bum luck" I guess.

Eventually got his "combat" experience in a sort of way.
Flying during the Berlin Airlift cost a lot of people their
lives flying very difficult weather and conditions. A few
bullet holes in his transport aircraft during Korea and
especially Vietnam (even to the French at Dien Bien Phu).
All the various "crises" of the Cold War (Suez crisis,
Libyan crisis, Lebanon crisis,...).

I can no longer quiz him on the details, and I probably
have some of them wrong, but although he'll never be a USAF
"combat veteran", it sure as hell wasn't through a lack of
effort on his part in trying! He simply followed the orders
that the USAF gave him. No wrangling, no "influence".

[Actually, after his death we got some of his official records
and there was a comment on some form stating "Congressional
influence" or something such as this.

This apparently dated from his original posting to Japan again
without the family being allowed to come. My mother broke
ranks with the AF and wrote her Congressman and Senator
claiming all his overseas posts were without family and it
was finally time for the family to be posted with him!

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!]


SMH



Good post. Lets not confuse fine men like yoour father who did everything they
could to get in with men who never tried or even worked to avoid doing combat
duty. We had all too many of those. Obviously we can't say that every man wh
never saw combat because it was :no fault of their own: There were all too many
who never saw combat and it damn well was the fault of their deliberate
avoidance where possible. But your dad flew the Berlin airlift, I would say
that constitutes combat in every sense of the word. But to say that every man
who never saw combat really wanted to, but it was just bad luck that he didn't
is failing to deal with reality. There wer even many that used self inflicted
wounds to avoid combat or who feighned insanity or would marry any woman they
could get their hands on, ge her pregnant to avoid being called up. There were
those who signed up at colleges and universities to get delays in being
called up just to avoid combat. Avoiding combat was a minor industry that we
now refuse to look at and now cover up as not being "politically correct"


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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Many combat vets
take awhile before they can become effective teachers

If we're speaking about the USAAF in WWII, some never made the
adjustment at all. The army found some men too nervous in the service
to be trusted as teachers. But still it was an inspired system.

Ed mentioned that "some countries" didn't follow this
combat-to-instructor rotation. Actually, I think that should be "no
other country" beside the U.S. The RAF may have done a bit of it,
without advertising it,

The RAF did rather a lot of it

With bomber pilots for example crews who survived a tour
would go on leave then be posted to an Operational Training
Unit to pass their knowledge on to new crews. Fighter pilots
tended to follow the same path with quite a number being posted
to bases set up in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand
under the Empire flight taining schemes

Keith

Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 3/7/04 5:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Many combat vets
take awhile before they can become effective teachers

If we're speaking about the USAAF in WWII, some never made the
adjustment at all. The army found some men too nervous in the service
to be trusted as teachers. But still it was an inspired system.

Ed mentioned that "some countries" didn't follow this
combat-to-instructor rotation. Actually, I think that should be "no
other country" beside the U.S. The RAF may have done a bit of it,
without advertising it,

The RAF did rather a lot of it

With bomber pilots for example crews who survived a tour
would go on leave then be posted to an Operational Training
Unit to pass their knowledge on to new crews. Fighter pilots
tended to follow the same path with quite a number being posted
to bases set up in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand
under the Empire flight taining schemes

Keith



Combat vvets made the best instructors. They brought realit to the game. But
they were not welcomed by those who couldn't take reality.


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

"D. Strang" wrote:

It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.

Even more phenomenal is that he always ends up getting all the
attention that he so desperately seeks. Just like Tarver, it doesn't
matter if the attention Kramer gets is good or bad attention, as long
as SOMEONE is paying attention to him!

Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
was sent packing.

Many outstanding golf instructors will never compete on the PGA level,
but guys like Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods would never
have become champions without the expert guidance and critiques from
their instructors.

An effective teacher doesn't necessarily have to have "been there
and done that."

"ArtKramr" wrote

If you have to be classified 1a, 1945 is a good time for it.

Anyone can drop bombs. Not many can make bombs or the delivery
vehicles. Face it, you had no skills, and were sent overseas. You could
have been a clerk typist, or a boilerman on a laundry ship.

Anyone who would brag about going to war, or their medals, is a
scum-bag in my book.

You are a braggart, and a pitiful excuse for an American. You need
to re-evaluate your life, and determine where you went wrong, and
then apologize to your family.

"ArtKramr" wrote

Combat vvets made the best instructors. They brought realit to the game. But
they were not welcomed by those who couldn't take reality.

Reality? What a braggart...

"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)