Rumsfeld and flying

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
| In article ,

|
|
| So how is Rumsfeld avoiding combat if he's flying ASW duty, but he and
| his squadronmates were part of a strategic deterresnt against Communist
| forces?


| ASW pilots that sank subs in WWII rarely were shot at in the
| Atlantic theater -- the weather, distances and aircraft reliability were
| far more an issue. So is attacking a submerged sub seeing the elephant?
|
|


Very minor nitpick Howard.


ASW crews in the Atlantic were routinely shot at in the latter part of the
war and some were shot down by their quarry.


From late '43, the anti submarine weapons became more common and more
effective. U-boat crews often felt they had a better chance of survival
if they stayed on the surface and engaged the aircraft at over 2,000m with
20mm and larger.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

Howard Berkowitz wrote:



Assuming he was an ASW pilot, where would he have seen combat?
Certainly, after the WWII ASW people retired, there was no one who saw
actual combat in that specialty, except a few Brits at the Falklands.
Did lots of ASW pilots participate in pindown, just-short-of-war
operations? Without question, in the Cold War.

Given that there were no airborne combat with subs between 1945 and
1982, how would you get people with experience in the current systems,
against a much more capable threat?

You don't need to be firing live ammo, dropping live depth
charges and torps to get experience in using all the latest
gadgets and gizmos Howard.

It's a much practiced skill. World wide competitions are held in
the science by almost every Armed Force in existance.

Matter of fact you likely get more skill in their use when you
aren't worried about getting yer goodies blown off. ASW is about
99 percent work and skill in detection and localization and 1
percent in the coup de grace.

Doesn't take a lot of skill to drop a string of 8 mk54's at 50
foot spacing across a sub from 50 feet when you know exactly
where he is. Tends to ruin his day too .

Now, if you wanna have a beer in the mess with him tonight you
substitute 8 SUS (signals underwater sound) for the Mk 54's and
do so...
--

-Gord.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way
found
fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a
complete
military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.

However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the
appropriate
place
to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on
flying
status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho
a
warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a
way to
make
a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had
wanted to
than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is
insulting
to
the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into
active
units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly
in
your
own unit at one time or another.

So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.

He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to read
from
1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or was
that just
a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting that our
Senator
from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with numerous other Navy
pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off their carriers?
Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the boat" is a put
down,
and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.

Uhmm..that Senator from Arizona was not flying S2F's, either, was he? Ed's
point stands, while you are heading off in another direction.


If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
man.

I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
Congressman.

And pray tell how, if he *was* still in a flight status (I don't think he
was--USNR types often give up their primary specialty when they leave active
duty and enter into the reserve realm due to their location, or the lack of
reserve billets in their particular specialty; my brother-in-law left active
duty as a submariner and served his reserve career out without ever again
doing any duty on a sub), how would he have been able to get an active duty
tour in Vietnam (or environs) flying an aircraft that was not essential to
the war effort, protecting against a North Vietnamese threat that did not
exist (i.e., they had no submarines for him to hunt)?


But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
Cohen, etc?

Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few
around
when
it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you
just
mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever
wars
they
were involved in supervising? That would be a valid
comparison.....what you
just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them
with an
orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.

My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.

We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from that
in
those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments
made
by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
considered him
far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.

Having served his active duty committment, and then going on to serve the
rest of his career in the USNR, makes his somehow "far from hawkish"? That
is an illogical statement.


It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
etc.

Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm
not in
the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.

Why? You have already strongly inferred that his prior active duty service,
coupled with his subsequent reserve service, is somehow lacking. So why not
have the balls to jump all of the way into the water and say it?


Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.

I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
downtown.

Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry
over
his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere
near
Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his
contributions,
whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?

Kerry's personal service, and the manner in which he obtained his early
return from his combat tour, would never have been a subject of discussion
had not he himself tried to impugn the Guard service of the current
President. When he did that, he opened the door to the questions of just how
he received not one, not two, but three seperate flesh wounds, and how he
actively worked to secure his own early return from the theater under a Navy
rule that stated an individual who had suffered three wounds of *any*
severity level could be returned from the theater, "after consideration of
his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis". It was not
a hard-set three wounds and you are out policy. Now how does that wording
apply to a guy who suffered a grand total of what, one or two lost duty days
for *one* of his three wounds? Not to mention the question of whether or not
Kerry himself actually performed any reserve duty after his later (again
early) release from active duty. As to his contributions...is that what you
call his testifying that US troops were conducting widespread atrocities
(using a speech drafted by RFK's former speechwriter, no less, and based
upon the since discredited, and Jane Fonda sponsored, "Winter Soldier
Investigation" "testimony") and criminal acts, accusations which were never
validated even after further investigation by the services?


.....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
kind of service,

I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both
sides of
the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
sub-category, I
gather that you don't have a problem with military people who one way or
the
other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat theater? Mr.
Rumsfeld
might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but
rather
because he didn't try when he could have as opposed to how hawkish and
war-like
he became subsequently when he was quite safely entrenched behind a desk
in
Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve outfit in the Washington suburbs.

By then he was a reservist who had already done his turn in the active duty
barrel. You get no points for that attack.


.....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,

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.

Whoah. Firstly, Kerry's conversion to raving anti-Vietnam critic came only
after he found he needed an "issue" that would get him some publicity--read
BG Burkett's "Stolen Valor", published (1998) well before the current
political campaign began:

"Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. Friends said
that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not
visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. "I thought of him as a rather normal
vet," a friend said to a reporter, "glad to be out but not terribly uptight
about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political
ambitions called him "a very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue."

Given his flip-flop on the medals-tossing issue ("They weren't really
mine"), this adds up to a man with political ambitions who jumped on the
VVAW bandwagon as a way of getting himself recognized, not because he came
home with a burning ambition to get US troops out of Vietnam. Had the latter
been his objective, why did he resort to making unsubstantiated claims about
widespread atrocities? And why did he have that speechwriter draft his
testimony?

Brooks


.......and with people who claim to be something that they are not.
(Those
aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)

And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
who
come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?

George Z.

ArtKramr wrote:

I thought we were talking about flying but I see it is now a purely a political
issue.
and therefore of far less interest. I never leveled any personal insults
against you as you are now against me. Lets let it go at that.

Arthur Kramer


It seems to me that you have been talking about combat. You certainly
have pointedly separated flying from combat throughout this thread.

I gather your position is that the U.S. should go to war at least once
every generation so that the brave can be distinguished from the rest.

I take that if you had been ORDERED to a non-combat aircrew postion you
would have refused the lawful order of your superiors?


Dave

I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it out
of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was a
slackard.

I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Mr. Rumsfeld
might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but
rather
because he didn't try when he could have

So...you're trying to say that Rumsfeld should have applied for re-instatement
to active duty (most certainly possible), applied to cross train into an
aircraft being used in SE Asia (highly unlikely) and then requested immediate
stationing in a Carrier Air Wing headed for SE Asia (???). And because he
didn't accomplish these 3 events you hold him in contempt? Your politics are
interfering with any good judgement you may have.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it out
of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was a
slackard.

I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?

Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
trainees will not respect them.
The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?

Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: Buzzer
Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it
out
of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was
a
slackard.

I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?

Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
trainees will not respect them.
The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?


You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were woman
and old men and high school kids. Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,
And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment for
any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those were
different times with obviously different standards.


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

"BUFDRVR" wrote

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.

I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on the way
to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.

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

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.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rumsfeld and flying
From: Buzzer
Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
These
guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart
beat,
but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand
new
navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job
considering
the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get
it
out
of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the
most
important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it
was
a
slackard.

I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?

Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
trainees will not respect them.
The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?


You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were
woman
and old men and high school kids.

No, they were not. That may be *your* twisted perception of reality, but it
is no more correct than your recent ludicrous pronouncements about the
National Guard during WWII.

"In 1944 there were 104,450,000 people over 14. Of that total 65,140,000
were in the labor force either as workers or in the military and 38,590,000
were not in the labor force (down less than 4 million from 1940). There were
46,520,000 males in the labor force including the military, of whom
35,460,000 were in the civilian workforce and 19,170,000 women in the
civilian workforce."

www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair50/m50c13n.html

The male civilian workforce vastly outnumbered the women workforce (about
two to one), and the fact of the matter is that the majority of those males
would have had to have fallen into the age group which would have been
eligable for military service (if not the draft).

Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,

In actuality, since the US armed forces only totalled about 11 plus million
strong at its peak, your statement is again wrong, since there were some 35
million men serving in the civilian workforce, and even if you were very
generous and said only one-third of those fell within the military's
age-eligibility range, you'd still have one military age male serving in the
civilian workforce for every man in the military force.

And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment
for
any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those
were
different times with obviously different standards.

Guess you might have taken more kindly to them if you had been smart enough
to realize that it would have been sort of hard for you to drop bombs that
were never manufactured because there were no younger, skilled, strong men
back in the States to help manufacture them; the women and old men couldn't
do it all. In the end the contribution of a mobilized US industrial base to
the war effort was every bit as valuable as that of the military forces, and
in fact neither would have existed without the other. One has to wonder how
willing a young, cocky Loo-tenant bombadier-by-golly like yourself, fresh
back from winning the war all by your lonesome, was to go up to a big brawny
crew of male shipbuilders/railroad workers/etc., and tell them how you did
not take kindly to their contribution to the war effort. Since you still
apparently have the use of your typing fingers, the obvious answer to that
is, "Not very."

Brooks



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