THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

I am only telling you this story because he passed away two years ago. I won't
reveal his identity. Let's call him Captain Johnson.
Captain Johnson's plane was badly hit over the target. He and his crew bailed
out. But Johnson never liked to keep his chute harness buckled tight. It gave
him cramps. So he wore it loose. On this occasion, as he bailed out he slipped
out of the harness and it tangled around his foot. That meant that he dangled
head down in his chute as he came to earth. He was badly shook up on landing
and hospitalized with severe cuts and bruises and a good deal of shock. After
he recovered he was returned to duty. At that time we needed 65 missions to go
home. He had 62, Only three more to go. But he refused to ever fly again. This
was serious business with a war on. He was sent to London and a staff of
psychiatrists worked on him, but he wouldn't fly. Then they said if he flew as
an observer on the lead aircraft he could get 1½ missions credit for each
mission, He could fly two and get credit for three, and go home. He still
refused to fly. What was to be done? You can't really court marshal a man with
62 missions for cowardice in face of the enemy. But he still wouldn't fly. But
everyone else in the 344th damn well had to fly. Feelings were running high.
The talk around the group was, "If I have to fly, then he has to fly. No free
lunch. He had a bad bailout? Too frigging bad. We all have our troubles." My
pilot Paul Shorts said, "he was weak". When his name was brought up, the
universal response was disgust. Then one day he was gone. Fast forward 15 years
to a reunion of the 344th Bomb Group. Who should walk in but our old friend
Captain Johnson. No one spoke to him. Many just turned their backs on him. I
felt sorry for him. But while we were risking our necks over Germany and losing
good men, he was curled up and whining under a blanket. He flew with us, but
not a single man in the 344th considered him to be one of us.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> YOSSARIAN, THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>
What a bunch of brain-dead ******s you are/were. PINKS.

Grantland

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

There, but for the Grace of God....

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 2/3/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>
>There, but for the Grace of God....
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell

YUP !


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

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY

<snip>

Shakespeare understood this.

"....he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

> He flew with us, but
> not a single man in the 344th considered him to be one of us.

Human nature hasn't changed much has it?

The CO

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:38:17 +1030, "The CO" >
wrote:

>Shakespeare understood this.
>
>"....he which hath no stomach to this fight,
>Let him depart; his passport shall be made
>And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
>We would not die in that man's company
>That fears his fellowship to die with us.
>This day is called the feast of Crispian:
>He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
>Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
>And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
>He that shall live this day, and see old age,
>Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
>And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
>Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
>And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
>Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
>But he'll remember with advantages
>What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
>Familiar in his mouth as household words
>Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
>Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
>Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
>This story shall the good man teach his son;
>And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world,
>But we in it shall be remember'd;
>We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
>For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
>Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
>This day shall gentle his condition:
>And gentlemen in England now a-bed
>Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
>And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
>That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

>The CO
>
And what then of the war when those few, those happy few, that band of
brothers are reviled by their countrymen as baby-killers and
murderers? Where "gentlemen in America now a-bed" don't have the
slightest inkling of the accursedness of not being there?

Then, we who were there will hold their manhood cheap among ourselves
when we gather and speak of those who fought with us.

Henry V, never would have imagined the modern citizen of the English
speaking world.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>"The CO" > wrote:

>>Shakespeare understood this.

>>"....he which hath no stomach to this fight,
>>Let him depart; his passport shall be made
>>And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
>>We would not die in that man's company
>>That fears his fellowship to die with us.
>>This day is called the feast of Crispian:
>>He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
>>Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
>>And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
>>He that shall live this day, and see old age,
>>Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
>>And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
>>Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
>>And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
>>Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
>>But he'll remember with advantages
>>What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
>>Familiar in his mouth as household words
>>Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
>>Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
>>Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
>>This story shall the good man teach his son;
>>And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>>From this day to the ending of the world,
>>But we in it shall be remember'd;
>>We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
>>For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
>>Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
>>This day shall gentle his condition:
>>And gentlemen in England now a-bed
>>Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
>>And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
>>That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

>>The CO

>And what then of the war when those few, those happy few, that band of
>brothers are reviled by their countrymen as baby-killers and
>murderers? Where "gentlemen in America now a-bed" don't have the
>slightest inkling of the accursedness of not being there?

>Then, we who were there will hold their manhood cheap among ourselves
>when we gather and speak of those who fought with us.

>Henry V, never would have imagined the modern citizen of the English
>speaking world.

Perhaps, but John F. Kennedy certainly did:

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation in prestige that the warrior does today."

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "The CO"
>Date: 2/3/04 3:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>
><snip>
>
>Shakespeare understood this.
>
>"....he which hath no stomach to this fight,
>Let him depart; his passport shall be made
>And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
>We would not die in that man's company
>That fears his fellowship to die with us.
>This day is called the feast of Crispian:
>He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
>Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
>And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
>He that shall live this day, and see old age,
>Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
>And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
>Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
>And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
>Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
>But he'll remember with advantages
>What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
>Familiar in his mouth as household words
>Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
>Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
>Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
>This story shall the good man teach his son;
>And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world,
>But we in it shall be remember'd;
>We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
>For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
>Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
>This day shall gentle his condition:
>And gentlemen in England now a-bed
>Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
>And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
>That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
>
>> He flew with us, but
>> not a single man in the 344th considered him to be one of us.
>
>Human nature hasn't changed much has it?
>
>The CO
>
>

And I don't think it ever will.


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

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/3/04 3:55 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Then, we who were there will hold their manhood cheap among ourselves
>when we gather and speak of those who fought with us.

Ed. I am sure you have known many who were severely wounded, recovered over
time and came back to their flying duties and just kept going. I do.We all do.
Men who were wounded and recovered and kept flying were the norm. Johnson was
not.


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

Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply. The British found
this out a long long time ago. Our forces need to learn from them. I
read that in WW2 the Brits pulled the men out of the front lines after
about 30 days to decompress, get a hot shower, clean unis, decent
chow, and live normally - as normal as one could get wherever they
were. The US Army did not do this. If you get a chance watch 'The
Battle of San Pietro' - it covers the flak-happy syndrome, battle
fatigue, what ever you want to call it. If you read 'Night Fighter' by
C F Rawnsley you will read about him and 'the twitch' - too many times
to the well without a break. And the amount of 'bravery' a man has is
quite variable; some can go on and on and others need a break sooner
(famous bell curve). One of the unfortunate consequences of staying in
continuous combat too long is the degradation of judgement. FWIW I
remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
around 1971, or was it just another rumor?
Now, for the really worthless SOBs, how about that BUFF pilot who was
willing to sit alert with multiple Hbombs but his conscience wouldn't
let him go over to SEA and drop dinky little HE bombs on people.
Walt BJ

>
>Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply.

Agree, Walt. Bravery and, just as important, mental sharpness both are
exhaustible resources.

Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and ended up
killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or internal drive
to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen died.

The top British nightfighter freely admitted he was shot down and captured
because he was mentally exhausted by too many operational sorties; he "spaced",
made a rookie mistake that nearly got him and his nav killed when they were
caught at low altitude and low airspeed by enemy fighters. (That same sort of
mistake got Duke and Driscoll shot down after the biggest day of their flying
careers, but for different reasons than the Brit nightfighter.)

Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way to find
out who is brave and who is not - its simply a way to expend them like
cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of their
lives.

v/r
Gordon

IIRC, RAF let the pilots let off steam, eg get drunk and disorderly, clap,
women pregnant etc. As long as they keep flying over target. The moment
there is any hesitation, the pilots get busted on "LMF- Lack of Moral Fibre"
"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply. The British found
> this out a long long time ago. Our forces need to learn from them. I
> read that in WW2 the Brits pulled the men out of the front lines after
> about 30 days to decompress, get a hot shower, clean unis, decent
> chow, and live normally - as normal as one could get wherever they
> were. The US Army did not do this. If you get a chance watch 'The
> Battle of San Pietro' - it covers the flak-happy syndrome, battle
> fatigue, what ever you want to call it. If you read 'Night Fighter' by
> C F Rawnsley you will read about him and 'the twitch' - too many times
> to the well without a break. And the amount of 'bravery' a man has is
> quite variable; some can go on and on and others need a break sooner
> (famous bell curve). One of the unfortunate consequences of staying in
> continuous combat too long is the degradation of judgement. FWIW I
> remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
> combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
> around 1971, or was it just another rumor?
> Now, for the really worthless SOBs, how about that BUFF pilot who was
> willing to sit alert with multiple Hbombs but his conscience wouldn't
> let him go over to SEA and drop dinky little HE bombs on people.
> Walt BJ

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>
>
SNIP of interesting, if sad, story

I am not really qualified to comment on the case of a single flier who
seemed to be doing fine until he got dropped on his head; I can only
admire those who manage to soldier on until the end; and feel sympathy
for those who cannot. However, it is not as if all aircrew come off the
production line, fully quality controlled in all respects, and
guaranteed to function fully for as long as necessary.

In late 1945, a study was made into the psychological disorders in
flying personnel of the RAF during WWII. This highlighted the fact that
the selection process for aircrew could not filter out all of the
candidates who would one day have a problem. It is a maxim of
management that when a man fails in his job the manager must share in
the blame for having put him there in the first place. During the war,
medical officers and flying instructors were briefed to watch for
temperamental unsuitability - they didn't always get it right.

The findings of the 1945 report are quite interesting, and a brief
summary follows:

Year by year there were about 3000 cases of nervous breakdown and 300
cases of lack of confidence, which showed that the selection process was
at least fairly uniform in its application. One third of the cases of
neurosis occurred in Bomber Command, one third in Training Command, and
the rest were spread amongst Coastal Command, Transport Command, and
Fighter Command. One third broke down without experience of operational
flying, one third broke down with less than 100 hours operational
flying, and one third broke down with more than 100 hours operational
flying.

Types of nervous breakdown were chiefly anxiety and hysteria, both
accounting for over 90 percent of cases. Almost all cases (98.4
percent) had an underlying psychological rather than a physical basis.

Of the cases of psychological disorder, 22.5 percent returned to full
flying, 3.5 percent returned to limited flying, and 72 percent were
grounded. 1.9 percent had to be invalided out.

One conclusion drawn was that psychiatric assessment was not appropriate
at aircrew entry, but should be one medical factor to be taken into
account at the final selection board.

So, although the RAF necessarily used the LMF tag to keep the waverers
in the job, privately it had a good understanding of the statistical
probabilities of the number of aircrew that would break down in any
period of time, and they knew that it was ultimately an issue of proper
selection processes.

That was a distinct improvement on the WWI practice of the British army
of allowing kids in their mid-teens to lie about their age and enter the
war; and then shoot them when they (unsurprisingly) cracked. It is said
that the army simply could not afford to acknowledge the fact of shell-
shock - although the army of 1939-45 seemed to have managed things a bit
better and only used the firing squad when it seemed to be absolutely
necessary to stop things unravelling. The execution of Eddie Slovik in
January 1945 owed more to a view of practical necessities during the
Battle of the Bulge than to the 'shock' of finding a deserter; there
were an incredible number - Hitler executed 50,000 men for cowardice; a
price in manpower paid for not correctly choosing between the men who
should be holding muskets; and those who should be away from the front
line.

I guess we just cannot expect sympathy and an objective view of the
human condition to reign supreme during wartime. As ever; management is
at fault, but believes it cannot afford to admit it.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, ArtKramr
> > writes

>
> That was a distinct improvement on the WWI practice of the British army
> of allowing kids in their mid-teens to lie about their age and enter the
> war; and then shoot them when they (unsurprisingly) cracked. It is said
> that the army simply could not afford to acknowledge the fact of shell-
> shock - although the army of 1939-45 seemed to have managed things a bit
> better and only used the firing squad when it seemed to be absolutely
> necessary to stop things unravelling. The execution of Eddie Slovik in
> January 1945 owed more to a view of practical necessities during the
> Battle of the Bulge than to the 'shock' of finding a deserter; there
> were an incredible number - Hitler executed 50,000 men for cowardice; a
> price in manpower paid for not correctly choosing between the men who
> should be holding muskets; and those who should be away from the front
> line.
>
> I guess we just cannot expect sympathy and an objective view of the
> human condition to reign supreme during wartime. As ever; management is
> at fault, but believes it cannot afford to admit it.
>

I'm not sure I entirely agree.

As you have mentioned the RAF and British Army at least attempted
to address the issue in a more realistic and enlightened way. I recall
my father speaking about a number of men who simply cracked under
the pressure of constant fear in the line. It wasnt just a matter of courage
as at least one of them had been awarded the military medal.

One case he never forgot was when they were pinned down for
2 days by German mortars and machine guns just outside
Caen in 1944 when his mate who had been in the regiment since
1938 and served throughout France in 1940 , North Africa and
Italy had a breakdown. They had to physically restrain him or he'd
have bolted from the trench which would have been suicidal.

He rejoined the regiment in early 1945 after treatment and nobody
thought the worse of him, he was just another casualty of
the war. A more well known example is the late comedian
Spike Milligan who broke down in Italy in 1944 after
being shelled on a mountain side in Italy while acting
as a forward artillery observer.

I'm sure the US forces were equally enlightened by the way its just
that my only direct knowledge is related to the British armed forces.
I do recall the furore that resulted after Patton slapped a man
suffering from combat fatigue.

In WW1 that man would have been shot.

Keith

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "Alfred Loo"
>Date: 2/3/04 11:50 PM Pacific Standard Time

>IRC, RAF let the pilots let off steam, eg get drunk and disorderly, clap,
>women pregnant etc. As long as they keep flying over target. The moment
>there is any hesitation, the pilots get busted on "LMF- Lack of Moral Fibre"

Yeah. War was hard.


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

In message >, Krztalizer
> writes
>>
>>Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply.
>
>Agree, Walt. Bravery and, just as important, mental sharpness both are
>exhaustible resources.
>
>Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and ended up
>killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or internal drive
>to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen died.

At the time of the dams raid Gibson was so exhausted and run-down that
he had a large carbuncle on his cheek that made it painful to do up his
oxygen mask.

From what I have read (I have no experience of combat) many writers have
said that every man has a given deposit of courage and endurance. When
the withdrawals exceed the deposit then that's it.
I read of one excellent navigator who, on his first mission over enemy
territory, clung to a spar in terror all the way there and all the way
back. He was removed immediately, of course, but it seems impossible to
predict any individual's reaction to danger.
The poor sod whom Art described was taken too far, but it was
unpredictable.

>
>The top British nightfighter freely admitted he was shot down and captured
>because he was mentally exhausted by too many operational sorties; he "spaced",
>made a rookie mistake that nearly got him and his nav killed when they were
>caught at low altitude and low airspeed by enemy fighters. (That same sort of
>mistake got Duke and Driscoll shot down after the biggest day of their flying
>careers, but for different reasons than the Brit nightfighter.)
>
>Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way to find
>out who is brave and who is not - its simply a way to expend them like
>cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of their
>lives.

Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
toughest of the tough.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "M. J. Powell"

>Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
>after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
>toughest of the tough.
>

It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do in combat
that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.


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

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>"M. J. Powell" wrote:

>>Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
>>after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
>>toughest of the tough.

>It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do in combat
>that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.

Also, the true test of one's character is judged by what he does when
no one is looking. No Air Medals for Autocollimator appearances.

(WaltBJ) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
>combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
>around 1971, or was it just another rumor?

After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
*wouldn't* be section eight material?

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>
>>Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
>>after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
>>toughest of the tough.
>>
>
>It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do in combat
>that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.

Sometimes Art, you show positive genius in misunderstanding people.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
(WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>[snipped for brevity]
>
>>FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
>>combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
>>around 1971, or was it just another rumor?
>
>After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
>*wouldn't* be section eight material?

HE started with a large deposit of courage and endurance but made one
too many withdrawals?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
way around.

Tony

p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?

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

"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
> couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
> diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
> know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
> snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
> won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
> an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
> for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
> way around.

Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As far
as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he failed
to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting war
half way around the world.

His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and maybe
even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam and
maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he thought
his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown Alabama
politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the streets
of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.

The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior courageous,
but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
which would even remotely be identified with courage.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>

>
> His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and
maybe
> even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam
and
> maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam.

He had already volunteered for Palace Alert duty--you were informed of this
before and admitted you had never heard of the program, much less the fact
that Bush did indeed volunteer for it. Your first false claim in this regard
can be chalked up to ignorance--repeated false claims just confirms your
lack of integrity.

I suppose he thought
> his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown
Alabama
> politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority.

Gee, the idea that NG personnel consider their civilian occupations as being
their normal first priority--astounding!

Then, too,
> maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the
streets
> of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.

Being as he had already volunteered for Palace Alert, you are just lying
agin.

>
> The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose
to
> walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior
courageous,
> but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none
of
> which would even remotely be identified with courage.

Courage would require you to admit you were wrong in posting this nonsense
the first time you did so--integrity should have kept you from repeating
this crap again after admitting you had no idea that the program existed, or
that Bush had indeed volunteered for it. Seems like you are not exhibiting
much of either quality. If you want to attack Bush on the basis of differing
opinions regarding his policies, fine, that would be your right. But
attacking him based upon your own false assertions is just plain lying, pure
and simple.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back and
>> couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
>> diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I don't
>> know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
>> snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
>> won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
>> an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
>> for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
>> way around.
>
>Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As far
>as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
>much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he failed
>to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting war
>half way around the world.
>
>His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and maybe
>even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam and
>maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he thought
>his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown Alabama
>politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
>maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the streets
>of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.
>
>The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
>walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior courageous,
>but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
>which would even remotely be identified with courage.
>
>George Z.

You seemed to have dropped the ball here, George. We are talking about
a WW II pilot in Art Kramer's unit who was shot down and then refused
to fly. Your fixation (and associated errors) seems to be overwhelming
your judgement.

But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
status in the military you take an annual flight physical. The
President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
among other place.

So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
and reduce the level of your personal agenda.


>
>
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:05 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> wrote:

>p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
>generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
>so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?
>
>> YUP !
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer

NOPE! You might want to read When Thunder Rolled for my description of
the last mission of my tour in which two of the seven flying from my
squadron were lost and I recovered back at Korat with ten pounds of
fuel left in the jet.

Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.

Lucky Ekman extended beyond his first 100 and got shot down on 132.
Jim Mitchell, my flight commander got shot down his second time on 99.
Karl Richter was shot down on 198 near the end of his 200. Many guys
with 100 North came back for more tours.

The practice of trying to keep guys off of the Pack VI schedule at the
end of the tour was to keep them alive, not because they "went
candy-assed."

I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
source of your information.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article >,
M. J. Powell > wrote:
>In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
(WaltBJ) wrote:
>>
>>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>>>FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his 748th
>>>combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly

>>After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
>>*wouldn't* be section eight material?
>
>HE started with a large deposit of courage and endurance but made one
>too many withdrawals?

Sounds like some of my father's stories.

They had one guy on his ship who'd been on Royal Oak when she
was topedoed. After he joined Egret he eventually reached the
stage where he couldn't sleep - or even go - below decks (this
on the Atlantic and South Atlantic convoy runs). IIRC he was
drafted to a shore post in the end (unless I'm thinking of
someone else). Certainly my father uses this (and similar)
stories to make the point that the Navy recognised that
very brave men could get to the point where they could no
longer function, whereas the RAF would have slapped them
with LMF.
One of his college friends (or a friend thereof - have to ask)
did join the RAF and after a time was threatened with being
declared LMF. He'd been flying low-level intruder missions
in daylight over France for about a year by then. In Blenheim
IVFs. No wonder the strain was showing. He kept flying and
didn't come back from his next intruder mission. No survivors
from the crew. Another splendid success for the RAF approach.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

> I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
> source of your information.

Hi Ed. I should've prefaced my statement with the reference to clarify
that I was quoting the word candy-assed (please accept my apology for not
doing so). My source is from G.I.'s book, from the chapter "Numbers Game",
p.103. To quote:

"After X number if missions, human nature being what it is, the pilot
suddenly realizes that he has indeed a chance that life may be possible. It
becomes utterly priceless again, and the warrior becomes a Candy-Ass. He
starts planning to survive the terminal disease of war, and his courage
leaves him. He is now vulnerable, and a hazard to himself and his
compatriots.
The bosses recognized this phenomena and declared the number 90 as
'golden'. After reaching 90, you went only to the easy ones again."

He goes on to explain how this doesn't work, as then pilots start
worrying about 89 as their last, then 88, etc. I'll leave further
clarification/interpretation of G.I.'s statement in your hands, as you are
far more qualified to interpret its meaning (did different wings have
different policies (or reasons underlying those policies?)). I just wanted
to clarify that my statements were based on a direct quote, and not any
personal belief that pilots lost their courage over time. Sincerely,

Tony Volk

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:03:39 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> wrote:

>> I'm biting my tongue to keep from pulling an Art here and asking the
>> source of your information.
>
> Hi Ed. I should've prefaced my statement with the reference to clarify
>that I was quoting the word candy-assed (please accept my apology for not
>doing so). My source is from G.I.'s book, from the chapter "Numbers Game",
>p.103. To quote:
>
>"After X number if missions, human nature being what it is, the pilot
>suddenly realizes that he has indeed a chance that life may be possible. It
>becomes utterly priceless again, and the warrior becomes a Candy-Ass. He
>starts planning to survive the terminal disease of war, and his courage
>leaves him. He is now vulnerable, and a hazard to himself and his
>compatriots.
> The bosses recognized this phenomena and declared the number 90 as
>'golden'. After reaching 90, you went only to the easy ones again."
>
> He goes on to explain how this doesn't work, as then pilots start
>worrying about 89 as their last, then 88, etc. I'll leave further
>clarification/interpretation of G.I.'s statement in your hands, as you are
>far more qualified to interpret its meaning (did different wings have
>different policies (or reasons underlying those policies?)). I just wanted
>to clarify that my statements were based on a direct quote, and not any
>personal belief that pilots lost their courage over time. Sincerely,
>
>Tony Volk

GI is right about the policy, but might be wrong about the rationale.
The statistics led to the conclusion that a guy was hazardous near the
end of the tour and it might be prudent to take some pressure off.
Depending upon manning levels (which because of losses in '66 and '67
were almost always minimal) the attempt would be made to take folks
off the Pack VI sorties for the last ten or last five. But, often the
requirement to fill the schedule meant it couldn't be done.

The reason was much more often that guys were becoming too aggressive
rather than too timid.

Unfortunately, any discussion with GI regarding his meaning will have
to wait until we meet again in Valhalla. GI passed away about two
weeks ago. Here's a nickle on the grass for a great one!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 2/4/04 6:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>>
>>>Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television once,
>>>after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant! The
>>>toughest of the tough.
>>>
>>
>>It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do in combat
>>that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.
>
>Sometimes Art, you show positive genius in misunderstanding people.
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell


It's one of my strong points.


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

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/4/04 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:05 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> wrote:
>
>>p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
>>generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
>>so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?
>>
>>> YUP !
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>
>NOPE! You might want to read When Thunder Rolled for my description of
>the last mission of my tour in which two o


That YUP wasn't from me.

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

> That YUP wasn't from me.
> Arthur Kramer

Well, it was, but it was in the wrong context in that it was
bottom-quoted in my original reply to you. Certainly, it had nothing to do
with my Vietnam comments.

Tony

> Unfortunately, any discussion with GI regarding his meaning will have
> to wait until we meet again in Valhalla. GI passed away about two
> weeks ago. Here's a nickle on the grass for a great one!

I'm sorry to hear that. My condolences to his friends and family.
Sincerely,

Tony Volk

>
>After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
>*wouldn't* be section eight material?

Rudel had over 2,000 combat missions. The reason he didn't go nuts is because
he started out nuts, a true "war lover".

Gunther Rall, onetime LW fighter ace and third highest scoring pilot of all
time, had a similar number of wartime sorties. In direct contrast to Rudel,
Rall kept his humanity intact and further served as NATO's commanding general
for some period. He remains a warm gentleman of integrity with wit and all of
his faculties in place. It just shows that some people indeed can 'hack it'
for years in combat without losing their minds, but Rall is undoubtably an
exception in this regard.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>
>
>"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back
>and
>> couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
>> diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I
>don't
>> know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
>> snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
>> won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
>> an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
>> for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
>> way around.
>
>Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As
>far
>as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
>much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he
>failed
>to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting
>war
>half way around the world.
>
>His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and
>maybe
>even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam
>and
>maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he
>thought
>his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown
>Alabama
>politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
>maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the
>streets
>of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.
>
>The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
>walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior
>courageous,
>but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
>which would even remotely be identified with courage.
>
>George Z.

Clue me, George, how does a GI of company grade refuse a physical?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

> And what then of the war when those few, those happy few, that band of
> brothers are reviled by their countrymen as baby-killers and
> murderers? Where "gentlemen in America now a-bed" don't have the
> slightest inkling of the accursedness of not being there?

I think he just means that you *had* to be there. Anyone who wasn't
wouldn't and
couldn't *really* understand, especially the 'gentlemen.......now a-bed'
(in the US and Oz - our diggers
got similar treatment at home initially) There's still a small minority
that wanted to practice that kind of
thing on our digs coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq, but they were,
ahem, discouraged, by the
fact that an awful lot of people here *do* understand duty - you do it
whether you agree with it or not
and don't take kindly to the dutiful wearing unpopularity that belongs
to the Pollies.......

For the record, I've never been in any form of combat and at my age now,
am unlikely to be.
But I respect those that have 'seen the elephant' since but for accident
of birth, there but
for the grace of God, go I.

> Then, we who were there will hold their manhood cheap among ourselves
> when we gather and speak of those who fought with us.

Those who weren't there have no right to disparage
the acts of those that were fulfilling their oath of obedience to the
CinC (or HM)
whether the political masters were doing the right thing or not.....
Unfortunately there are always some (then and now) that don't get
that...

> Henry V, never would have imagined the modern citizen of the English
> speaking world.

Perhaps not in as much quantity, but I think he understood the differnt
types
of people pretty well. There are arseholes and scumbags in his plays as
well.

The CO

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Hold on a bit. Bravery is not a never-ending supply.
>
> Agree, Walt. Bravery and, just as important, mental sharpness both
are
> exhaustible resources.

No argument with either of those *facts*. There is a breaking point for
anyone,
it's just in different places and triggerable by different events.....

> Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and
ended up
> killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or
internal drive
> to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen
died.

Oh? Actually I thought the mainspar failed in the Mosquito after being
previously
overstressed in a very high G pullout elsewhere? Or am I thinking of
someone else?

<snip>

> Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way
to find
> out who is brave and who is not

No, and I wasn't implying anything of the kind. My statement about
courage seems
to have become out of context. IIRC, it was Gibson(?) who said that
there were 2
kinds of courage, the man who simply feels 'it can't/won't happen to
me', perhaps somewhat
unimaginative in that respect, and who is therefore more readily able to
do dangerous things
supposedly without being *really* afraid and the other kind, who *knows*
that it *can* happen to him,
perhaps through seeing just one too many close friends or associates
'get the chop' or just through
being more 'imaginative' BUT still 'carry on' regardless. IIRC, he
considered the second kind the bravest
of the brave. He put himself in the first category. I'm in no position
to argue with him, or indeed anyone
who's 'been there'.

> - its simply a way to expend them like
> cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of
their
> lives.

True enough. I could hypothesise that the first kind could suddenly
lose that belief in their immortality
that seems natural in those under about 30 through constant trauma.
Perhaps enough to make them
unable to carry on in the same way. (As did Art's "Captain Johnson" I
think). That he 'lost his bottle'
as the poms put it, was just one man reaching his breaking point.

The CO

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Mike Marron
> > writes
> (WaltBJ) wrote:
> >
> >[snipped for brevity]
> >
> >>FWIW I remember hearing about a pilot who flipped out while on his
748th
> >>combat mission in SEA. Anybody else remember that case, supposedly
> >>around 1971, or was it just another rumor?
> >
> >After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
> >*wouldn't* be section eight material?
>
> HE started with a large deposit of courage and endurance but made one
> too many withdrawals?

Sounds like as good a description as any.

The CO

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >After surviving nearly 750 missions (?!!) in combat who the hell
> >*wouldn't* be section eight material?
>
> Rudel had over 2,000 combat missions. The reason he didn't go nuts is
because
> he started out nuts, a true "war lover".

Having read his book, I'd have to agree. Good pilot, good Nazi and
slightly loopy.
It was all a big adventure to him and he was sorry it was over....

Rather like a particular officer depicted in movie of "Battle of the
Bulge", who was told
by a subordinate that 'he would do anything just to keep wearing that
uniform'...
All sides have them in varying quantities I guess.

> Gunther Rall, onetime LW fighter ace and third highest scoring pilot
of all
> time, had a similar number of wartime sorties. In direct contrast to
Rudel,
> Rall kept his humanity intact and further served as NATO's commanding
general
> for some period. He remains a warm gentleman of integrity with wit
and all of
> his faculties in place. It just shows that some people indeed can
'hack it'
> for years in combat without losing their minds, but Rall is
undoubtably an
> exception in this regard.

The Luftwaffe certainly had examples of both kinds of man. Galland was
somewhere
between the two I think.....

The CO

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony Volk" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I'm curious here. Would it have been different if he broke his back
and
> >> couldn't fly? That would be a medical reason. So what if he was medically
> >> diagnoses as being mentally incompetent to fly? I wasn't there, and I
don't
> >> know him, but it sounds like he was courageous individual who had something
> >> snap that he couldn't consciously control (extreme PTSD presumably). I
> >> won't presume to judge your fraternity's opinion of him, but if he did have
> >> an extreme (now medically diagnosable) mental breakdown, he deserves thanks
> >> for his 62, and pity for his medical condition after. Crappy deal all the
> >> way around.
> >
> >Why are we branching out into imaginary medical/psychiatric conditions? As
far
> >as anybody knows, he was of sound mind and body at that time. What it pretty
> >much boils down to is why he chose to cease flying (which he did when he
failed
> >to renew his flight physical) while his country was involved in a shooting
war
> >half way around the world.
> >
> >His priorities obviously did not include retaining his flying status and
maybe
> >even volunteering for transition into a combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam
and
> >maybe even subsequently volunteering to serve in Viet Nam. I suppose he
thought
> >his Texas ANG experience uniquely qualified him to manage some unknown
Alabama
> >politician's election campaign, and that was his first priority. Then, too,
> >maybe the streets of Montgomery or Birmingham being far safer than the
streets
> >of Pleiku or Bien Hoa might have had something to do with it.
> >
> >The fact remains that our shooting war was in Southeast Asia and he chose to
> >walk in the opposite direction. You can call that kind of behavior
courageous,
> >but I can think of numerous other descriptive adjectives I might use, none of
> >which would even remotely be identified with courage.
> >
> >George Z.
>
> You seemed to have dropped the ball here, George. We are talking about
> a WW II pilot in Art Kramer's unit who was shot down and then refused
> to fly. Your fixation (and associated errors) seems to be overwhelming
> your judgement.

I don't know who you were talking about, since I don't read Kramer's stuff any
more. I was responding to comments made by Tony and, for whatever reason I think
too unimportant to seek out, it led me to believe that there was a reference to
comments made about our President's military aviation career.
>
> But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
> That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
> status in the military you take an annual flight physical.

I concur. In my day, when we (active duty guys) were ordered to the FSO for our
annual physical, we simply showed up at the right time for it. I can't remember
for a fact how that was handled when I was in an active AFRes outfit; I think we
were notified that we were in need of a current flight physical to be acquired
some time during the month preceding our birthday, and it was up to us to see
that we got it by making the necessary appointments with the FSO.

> .....The President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

If I recall correctly, he was notified by his ANG people that he needed a
current flight physical.....he simply did not see to it that he got one. That's
what I meant by my reference to his failure to renew his physical. If there's
any blame to be attributed to that, it can only go to the flier who allowed it
to happen.


>
> The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
> UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
> alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
> at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
> Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
> unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
> up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.
>
> He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
> (including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
> among other place.

If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered to
transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.
>
> So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
> and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying time
in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around, and
he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had. Excuse
me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't think
of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going to
get.

If I haven't got my facts right, please do straighten me out, since you seem to
think you know everything there is to know about his flying career. On the
subject of relevent, if you try hard, I think you'll have to admit that the
subject of this thread, which may well have started out as one about one of
Kramer's mates, also fits our current President like a glove. It seemed
relevent to me when I saw it.

As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't know
what level it's at or is supposed to be at. If you happen to run across it,
would you mind sending me a copy? I seem to have misplaced mine.

George Z.

>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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

<snip>

>
> If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have
volunteered to
> transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like
the
> F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

Demonstrating once again your complete and utter lack of touch with reality.
He was an ANG pilot, trained to fly an aircraft assigned to the unit he was
in. You don't just up and decide, "Hey, I think I'll become a (F-100, F-86,
etc.) pilot tomorrow!" In order for him to transition, he'd have had to have
found another unit with a pilot vacancy (getting harder to come by at the
time due to the fallout of former active duty pilots), transferred to said
unit, and then gone through the transition training program. Now quickly,
what were the ONLY two ANG combat aircraft types that were deployed to
Vietnam and surrounding environs? That's right--the F-100 and the...F-102!
Gee, that latter mount was the one that GWB was flying, and the one for
which he VOLUNTEERED (since you are apparnetly having a difficult time
understanding that FACT) to fly in PALACE ALERT...


> >
> > So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
> > and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
>
> Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
> statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient
flying time
> in the bird to be favorably considered?

How was he to know that? Why did they offer these new guys the chance to
volunteer while they were still in the training pipeline if their
participation was already irrevocably ruled out? H'mmm?

All he had to do was to ask around, and
> he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had.

Then you would no doubt have hammered him for NOT volunteering...oh, that's
right, you have done that ANYWAY. Looks like GWB was in a "damned if he did,
damned if he didn't" conundrum in your view.

Excuse
> me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't
think
> of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not
going to
> get.

How do you know he knew he was not going to be selected? Do you think he was
clairvoyant, and should have been able to devine that in the end, yes, they
did have enough more experienced volunteers come forward so they would not
have to use the less experienced personnel? Do you think that just MAYBE the
ANG/USAF asked for volunteers straight out of the training pipeline because
they were not sure they would continue to get enough more experienced
personnel to support PALACE ALERT rotations, nor were they aware that the
program itself would end within a year or so?

>
> If I haven't got my facts right, please do straighten me out,

We have been--you just continue to listen to the facts.

since you seem to
> think you know everything there is to know about his flying career. On
the
> subject of relevent, if you try hard, I think you'll have to admit that
the
> subject of this thread, which may well have started out as one about one
of
> Kramer's mates, also fits our current President like a glove. It seemed
> relevent to me when I saw it.

Well, since your view of the actual situation is so wrapped up in your own
fantasies instead of the actual factual events that occured, that is little
surprise.

>
> As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of

ROFLOL! Give us a break; if you can't 'fess up to holding a grudge against
GWB that forces you to go to the lengths you have gone to (refusing to
acknowledge that he did volunteer, refusing to understand that he was indeed
flying one of the two models of fighter that the ANG sent into the theater,
etc.), then your integrity problem is even greater than I thought, 'cause
you are deceiving yourself in addition to everyone else.

Brooks

and so don't know
> what level it's at or is supposed to be at. If you happen to run across
it,
> would you mind sending me a copy? I seem to have misplaced mine.
>
> George Z.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > Smithsonian Institution Press
> > ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

>
>> Look what happened to Guy Gibson - too many times to the well and
>ended up
>> killing his hapless "navigator" and himself. His "bravery" (or
>internal drive
>> to grapple with the enemy) was the primary reason both of these airmen
>died.
>
>Oh? Actually I thought the mainspar failed in the Mosquito after being
>previously
>overstressed in a very high G pullout elsewhere? Or am I thinking of
>someone else?

He took a navigator up who had never been inside a Mosquito before. There was
little to no pre-flight briefing and the switchology on the fuel system on the
Mosquito, frankly, required a systems expert to operate it all in the dark. At
a point coinciding with fuel starvation on the main tanks, the aircraft "ran
out" of fuel and crashed in the dark, next to a village with many witnesses.
Rumors about the crash persist to this day, but the villagers described the
hapless crew struggling to restart engines as it circled lower and lower,
finally impacting the ground. It was a very odd sound for late at night - a
circling aircraft with engines cutting out, then silence for half a minute
followed by a shattering crash.

>> Expecting men to face death daily over a period of years is not a way
>to find
>> out who is brave and who is not
>
>No, and I wasn't implying anything of the kind. My statement about
>courage seems
>to have become out of context. IIRC, it was Gibson(?) who said that
>there were 2
>kinds of courage, the man who simply feels 'it can't/won't happen to
>me', perhaps somewhat
>unimaginative in that respect, and who is therefore more readily able to
>do dangerous things
>supposedly without being *really* afraid and the other kind, who *knows*
>that it *can* happen to him,
>perhaps through seeing just one too many close friends or associates
>'get the chop' or just through
>being more 'imaginative' BUT still 'carry on' regardless. IIRC, he
>considered the second kind the bravest
>of the brave. He put himself in the first category. I'm in no position
>to argue with him, or indeed anyone
>who's 'been there'.

Basil Embry, #1 bad ass of the RAF, agreed and used almost the exact wording.
"Chop rate" gives me the willies - the stoicism displayed by the Bomber Command
boys during the bloody period between 1940 to 1942 far exceeds my own; right up
there with the USN's torpedo bomber crews of 1942...

>> - its simply a way to expend them like
>> cartridges, or leave many of them as broken shadows for the rest of
>their
>> lives.
>
>True enough. I could hypothesise that the first kind could suddenly
>lose that belief in their immortality
>that seems natural in those under about 30 through constant trauma.
>Perhaps enough to make them
>unable to carry on in the same way. (As did Art's "Captain Johnson" I
>think). That he 'lost his bottle'
>as the poms put it, was just one man reaching his breaking point.


Agree.

We did have one that fell into neither of these two categories: I served with
a chump who decided (after 4 years of quiet, relatively safe peacetime
training) that it wasn't "safe" for him to fly night landings aboard ship. He
became a pariah in my squadron and he had no reason whatever to justify all the
thousands of dollars he soaked up, just to quit when he actually had to face a
little danger. He didn't ever live it down and when I see him on occasion, I
call him a coward to his face, San Diego Sheriff uniform or not. I can't
believe he took another career where folks will be depending on him, after the
way he reacted the first time. If I had him with me in battle, I'd shove him
out ahead of me and use what was left as a barricade, because I sure as hell
wouldn't want him _beside_ me.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

>
>The Luftwaffe certainly had examples of both kinds of man. Galland was
>somewhere
>between the two I think.....
>

LOL When you make General at 30, fitting the oversize head through doorways
is going to be a problem. :)

G

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

> As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't
know
> what level it's at or is supposed to be at.

That noise you just heard was the sound of hundreds of people
either laughing, choking or using profanity.

>From: "John Keeney"

>
>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
>> As for my personal agenda, I don't have one that I'm aware of and so don't
>know
>> what level it's at or is supposed to be at.
>
>That noise you just heard was the sound of hundreds of people
>either laughing, choking or using profanity.
>
Or all of the above.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >, Keith Willshaw <keithNoSp
> writes
>
>"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, ArtKramr
>> > writes
>
>>
>> That was a distinct improvement on the WWI practice of the British army
>> of allowing kids in their mid-teens to lie about their age and enter the
>> war; and then shoot them when they (unsurprisingly) cracked. It is said
>> that the army simply could not afford to acknowledge the fact of shell-
>> shock - although the army of 1939-45 seemed to have managed things a bit
>> better and only used the firing squad when it seemed to be absolutely
>> necessary to stop things unravelling. The execution of Eddie Slovik in
>> January 1945 owed more to a view of practical necessities during the
>> Battle of the Bulge than to the 'shock' of finding a deserter; there
>> were an incredible number - Hitler executed 50,000 men for cowardice; a
>> price in manpower paid for not correctly choosing between the men who
>> should be holding muskets; and those who should be away from the front
>> line.
>>
>> I guess we just cannot expect sympathy and an objective view of the
>> human condition to reign supreme during wartime. As ever; management is
>> at fault, but believes it cannot afford to admit it.
>>
>
>I'm not sure I entirely agree.
>
I guess you are referring to the bit about 'sympathy and objective
view'?

While the psychiatric help may have been available (and since your note
I have researched a bit more and found that shrinks were actually
assigned to the field), there was still a huge hurdle of official
disapproval (to say nothing of the potential disapproval of the men in
the unit - the man your father spoke of seems to have been luckier than
many - probably because of his long service) to overcome before a man
could expect help. The LMF tag loomed large in the existence of the RAF
pilot; even if the help was available behind it. I seem to remember in
'Fly for your Life' where Tuck bounced a pilot who had tried to make
excuses for returning early - the pilot was next seen as an aircraftman
sweeping the floors; still wearing his pilot's brevet. So the process
of providing help did not appear to be well exposed.

>As you have mentioned the RAF and British Army at least attempted
>to address the issue in a more realistic and enlightened way. I recall
>my father speaking about a number of men who simply cracked under
>the pressure of constant fear in the line. It wasnt just a matter of courage
>as at least one of them had been awarded the military medal.
>
Yes, too much exposure to danger will ultimately grind you down. One
psychiatric source reckons that nervous breakdowns will end up 100
percent if a unit never gets any rest. Interesting discovery - he
British army tried to keep its units 12 days in the line followed by 4
out, to keep them effective.

>One case he never forgot was when they were pinned down for
>2 days by German mortars and machine guns just outside
>Caen in 1944 when his mate who had been in the regiment since
>1938 and served throughout France in 1940 , North Africa and
>Italy had a breakdown. They had to physically restrain him or he'd
>have bolted from the trench which would have been suicidal.
>
>He rejoined the regiment in early 1945 after treatment and nobody
>thought the worse of him, he was just another casualty of
>the war. A more well known example is the late comedian
>Spike Milligan who broke down in Italy in 1944 after
>being shelled on a mountain side in Italy while acting
>as a forward artillery observer.
>
>I'm sure the US forces were equally enlightened by the way its just
>that my only direct knowledge is related to the British armed forces.

Yes, again your note prompted me to research a bit more. The US did
have shrinks in the field as well. However, the day of the 'political
trial for cowardice' does not appear to have passed. While researching
last night, I found that a US soldier in the Gulf is at present under a
charge of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' for having told his
superiors that he could not proceed with a combat assignment after
having seen the mangled body of an Iraqi soldier. Either it was the
shrink's day off or someone is trying to make a point.

A further finding; there appear to have been fewer cases of breakdown in
the US army in Korea, as against WWII, and very few in Vietnam, so one
monitoring process seemed to have improved. However, in Vietman, there
was a new phenomenon. The schedule for rotating men in and out of
theatre ended up with each man being given a set date to return home.
This meant that units were composed of men drifting in and out at all
times, which was disastrous for unit morale and cohesion, with men
comparing their departure dates and predictably, as the date drew near,
thinking more and more about survival. (Any layman might have predicted
this - the practice must have originated from some bureaucratic or
political angle) They were then whisked home and returned to normal
life still blinking at it all and wondering what had been achieved. And
no big thank you from a country that had been worn down by watching it
all on TV. This led to a huge number of Post Traumatic cases.

However, in WWII, men shipped out together and were shipped home
together - usually by ship. They had time to readjust and generally
rounded off their experience, often with a victory parade. So,
cohesion, comradeship, and a big thank-you at the end, meant that they
had a fraction of the PTs.

>I do recall the furore that resulted after Patton slapped a man
>suffering from combat fatigue.
>
>In WW1 that man would have been shot.

Too true - the British army ended up shooting over 300 men for
cowardice. BTW, I have one correction to make to my last note. I read
once that Auckinleck had requested the return of the death sentence for
cowardice (after it had been abolished in 1929) and I thought his
request had been granted and the firing squad periodically used again.
Last night, I found out from elsewhere that his request had been turned
down.

>Keith
>
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:58 -0500, "George Z. Bush"

>But, first there is no "renew your flight physical" in the military.
>That applies to Class I/II/III for FAA license. If you are on flying
>status in the military you take an annual flight physical. The
>President did not "fail to renew" a physical.

True, he simply failed to meet his "obligation" to take a flight
physical with a military flight surgeon. One published report has GWB
claiming he had his military physical administered by his private
physician. Come on Ed, how many Guard guys do you know that were dumb
enough (or smart depending on your perspective) to use that as an
excuse?

>The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
>UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
>alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
>at Montgomery while working on a political campaign.

Fair enough, do you recall what your service commitment was upon
graduation from UPT was? I think mine was 6 years. Perhaps the service
commitment was shortened during 1972, but I doubt it.

> The NYT has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
>unable to meet commitments.

You are being more than kind my friend. On one hand he has
authorization to drill with the AL ANG, and said he did, but later
says he was unable to. Skeptics would say this claim came after the CO
of the AL unit, said GWB never showed up as planned.

>He requested and received approval to make
>up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.

OK he recieved approval to make up the missed drills, and yet never
met his "obligation." He didn't...he never flew again. He was removed
from flying status for failing to meet his "obligation." I have
difficulty with the notion that a guy that managed to get a flying
slot in an ANG fighter squadron would simply be "unable to meet
commitments," and you buy into that. Your charity is extremely kind
considering where you were at the time.

>He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
>(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
>among other place.

Ed, we've covered this before. F-102s were no longer in SEA during
your second tour. So it is factually incorrect to claim they were in
use (at that time). For those that don't believe me, check the lineage
of the F-102 units in PACAF and see when they converted to F-4s or
were deactivated. Absent that look in the Appendices of "To Hanoi And
Back", specifically the AOB for 1972...you will find no F-102s in SEA
[period].

>So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,

Hehe...even the best of us make errors.

>and reduce the level of your personal agenda.

Come on Ed, George thought this thread was about not meeting one's
obligation (a pilot that wouldn't fly) and it logically, naturally
leads many to think of the current occupant of the Oval Office. That's
what I thought it was, I only read it because I have Agent set up to
read threads you post to. I obviously agree with George on this, and
without any agenda.

Juvat

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:


>I don't know who you were talking about, since I don't read Kramer's stuff any
>more. I was responding to comments made by Tony and, for whatever reason I think
>too unimportant to seek out, it led me to believe that there was a reference to
>comments made about our President's military aviation career.
>>
>>
>> The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
>> UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
>> alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
>> at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
>> Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
>> unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
>> up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.
>>
>> He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
>> (including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
>> among other place.
>
>If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered to
>transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
>F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.

"Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
"fighter" stuff. F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
duty throughout the war.

Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.
>>
>> So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
>> and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
>
>Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
>statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying time
>in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around, and
>he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had. Excuse
>me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't think
>of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going to
>get.

Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
statement is accepted, you are eligible. There might have been a
"desired" hours requirement, but it was a long way from "hard and
fast" if you were current in the system.

I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
was in the F-4E).

I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
deployment.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Juvat" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police Ed Rasimus
> blurted out:
>

<snip>

>
> >The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
> >UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
> >alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
> >at Montgomery while working on a political campaign.
>
> Fair enough, do you recall what your service commitment was upon
> graduation from UPT was? I think mine was 6 years. Perhaps the service
> commitment was shortened during 1972, but I doubt it.

A couple of other factors likely entered into the picture. GWB had been
trained to fly the F-102, which was leaving the ANG inventory rather quickly
in the 72-75 timeframe (IIRC the last ANG F-102, from the HIANG, left
service in early 76). GWB's unit had alrady received its first replacement
aircraft in May 71 (the F-101), and by 1974 all of its F-102's were gone.
With new aircraft coming into the inventory, and pilots increasingly
available from the active component who were likely already qualified in the
new aircraft, the likelihood of the ANG releasing pilots rather than pay to
have them requalify in a new aircraft is not all that unlikely, espeially
given that Bush's unit was destined to become the ANG's training unit for
F-101's and would therefore have probably *preferred* to have the more
experienced pilots serving as IP's.

>
> > The NYT has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
> >unable to meet commitments.
>
> You are being more than kind my friend. On one hand he has
> authorization to drill with the AL ANG, and said he did, but later
> says he was unable to. Skeptics would say this claim came after the CO
> of the AL unit, said GWB never showed up as planned.

And some would point out that the ALANG officer in question later backed off
from that initial assertion offering ""I don't think he did, but I wouldn't
stake my life on it. I think I would have remembered him."
(www.sundaysalon.org/press_reference.asp ) Now how many then-LTC's could be
expected to recall the names of 1LT's who performed a couple of weekends of
duty under their (probably somewhat remote) control some thirty years later?
As a Guard officer I had junior officers from other states and units perform
"split assemblies" in our S-3 shop on numerous occasions, and *five* years
later I could not recall their names if I *had* to. Further:

"Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that
regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up
within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's
military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and
for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on
dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent
to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy
B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10.
Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29,
1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe."
(NYT, Nov 3, 2000) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071031/posts


>
> >He requested and received approval to make
> >up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.
>
> OK he recieved approval to make up the missed drills, and yet never
> met his "obligation." He didn't...he never flew again.

Where in his legal military obligations does it require him to remain in a
flying status in a unit that is dumping the very aircraft he was current in?

He was removed
> from flying status for failing to meet his "obligation." I have
> difficulty with the notion that a guy that managed to get a flying
> slot in an ANG fighter squadron would simply be "unable to meet
> commitments," and you buy into that. Your charity is extremely kind
> considering where you were at the time.

Ed likely understands the timeline of Bush's service in the F-102, and the
nature of what it was like flying in an ANG unit, better than most of us.

>
> >He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
> >(including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
> >among other place.
>
> Ed, we've covered this before. F-102s were no longer in SEA during
> your second tour. So it is factually incorrect to claim they were in
> use (at that time). For those that don't believe me, check the lineage
> of the F-102 units in PACAF and see when they converted to F-4s or
> were deactivated. Absent that look in the Appendices of "To Hanoi And
> Back", specifically the AOB for 1972...you will find no F-102s in SEA
> [period].

Meaningless. Bush volunteered for Palace Alert while it was still underway
(unless you think the USAF made a practice of soliciting volunteers for
programs that had already been terminated).

>
> >So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
>
> Hehe...even the best of us make errors.

So far, your's seem to be more evident than any of Ed's.

>
> >and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
>
> Come on Ed, George thought this thread was about not meeting one's
> obligation (a pilot that wouldn't fly) and it logically, naturally
> leads many to think of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

"Logically, naturally" leads to that conclusion only if one has an already
rather well sharpened axe to grind vis a vis the current C-inC, you mean.

Brooks

That's
> what I thought it was, I only read it because I have Agent set up to
> read threads you post to. I obviously agree with George on this, and
> without any agenda.
>
> Juvat

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:


> >> He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
> >> (including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
> >> among other place.

Your memory is apparently failing. See Juvat's comments elsewhere on this
subject.
> >
> >If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered
to
> >transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
> >F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.
>
> "Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
> specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
> Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
> "fighter" stuff.

Whatever! I obviously did not fly in VN and am not familiar with the terms used
there. "Top cover" was a term used in WWII and Korea, son.

> ......F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
> duty throughout the war.

Not according to Juvat.
>
> Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
> to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
> of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
> deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.
> >>
> >> So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
> >> and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
> >
> >Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
> >statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying
time
> >in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around,
and
> >he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had.
Excuse
> >me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't
think
> >of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going
to
> >get.
>
> Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
> statement is accepted, you are eligible.

His wasn't, so he wasn't eligible. So what's your point?

> .....There might have been a "desired" hours requirement, but it was a long
way from "hard and
> fast" if you were current in the system.

So what? Are we now going to criticize the people who turned him down? I made
a point that was critical of him and you're intent on making excuses for his
behavior. Until you can show me something different (and I know you can't),
I've concluded that he put in his volunteer statement knowing full well when he
did it that it wouldn't be approved, and that he did it for self-aggrandizing
purposes.

> I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
> than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
> combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
> was in the F-4E).
>
> I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
> deployment.

Perhaps not. I've read somewhere that he, even with his 300 hours more or less,
was not the brightest candle on the F-102 cake. IAC, as I'm sure you know and
will agree, there are pilots and there are pilots, and they sure as hell aren't
one just like the other. For all I know, you could have taken up an F-102 with
15 or 20 hours under your belt and done a better job with the bird than he could
with 500. It's possible.

George Z.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
>
>
> > >> He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
> > >> (including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
> > >> among other place.
>
> Your memory is apparently failing. See Juvat's comments elsewhere on this
> subject.

Fact--the F-102 was deployed to the SEA theater during the time GWB
volunteered for Palace Alert duty; the last F-102's apparently did not pull
out of Thailand/Vietnam until the latter part of 1970.

> > >
> > >If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have
volunteered
> to
> > >transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war,
like the
> > >F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.
> >
> > "Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
> > specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
> > Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
> > "fighter" stuff.
>
> Whatever! I obviously did not fly in VN and am not familiar with the
terms used
> there. "Top cover" was a term used in WWII and Korea, son.
>
> > ......F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
> > duty throughout the war.
>
> Not according to Juvat.

They were deployed for that role during the timeframe that Bush volunteered
for the mission (late '69, early '70). Juvat prefers to dally with verbal
specifics (he is correct in stating that the F-102 was withdrawn before the
final US pullout, but that does not matter a whit in regards to the issue of
Bush volunteering for what was then a still-ongoing F-102 mission to SEA).

> >
> > Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
> > to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
> > of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
> > deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.
> > >>
> > >> So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts
straight,
> > >> and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
> > >
> > >Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s
duty"
> > >statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient
flying
> time
> > >in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask
around,
> and
> > >he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had.
> Excuse
> > >me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I
can't
> think
> > >of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not
going
> to
> > >get.
> >
> > Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
> > statement is accepted, you are eligible.
>
> His wasn't, so he wasn't eligible. So what's your point?

Why do you say he was not eligable? Do you think the USAF asked for
volunteers from a pool of individuals who were already determijned not to be
qualified for that mission? Your lack of logic is astounding.

>
> > .....There might have been a "desired" hours requirement, but it was a
long
> way from "hard and
> > fast" if you were current in the system.
>
> So what? Are we now going to criticize the people who turned him down? I
made
> a point that was critical of him and you're intent on making excuses for
his
> behavior. Until you can show me something different (and I know you
can't),
> I've concluded that he put in his volunteer statement knowing full well
when he
> did it that it wouldn't be approved, and that he did it for
self-aggrandizing
> purposes.

You are wrong.

>
> > I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
> > than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
> > combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
> > was in the F-4E).
> >
> > I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
> > deployment.
>
> Perhaps not. I've read somewhere that he, even with his 300 hours more or
less,
> was not the brightest candle on the F-102 cake. IAC, as I'm sure you know
and
> will agree, there are pilots and there are pilots, and they sure as hell
aren't
> one just like the other. For all I know, you could have taken up an F-102
with
> 15 or 20 hours under your belt and done a better job with the bird than he
could
> with 500. It's possible.

And meaningless. So you are now critiquing hia lleged skills as an F-102
pilot, huh? Getting desperate, Georgie?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > Smithsonian Institution Press
> > ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

That's terrible that after flying all those missions it ended so
shamefully. He flew 62 missions, so I can't be critical of him, but
your group has every right to be. Did you ever talk with your group
mates about how they felt they would have reacted in the same
situation? I honestly have no idea whether I'd be able to get back in
a plane after something like that. I guess nobody does until they're
faced with the situation.

~Michael

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>
> I am only telling you this story because he passed away two years ago. I won't
> reveal his identity. Let's call him Captain Johnson.
> Captain Johnson's plane was badly hit over the target. He and his crew bailed
> out. But Johnson never liked to keep his chute harness buckled tight. It gave
> him cramps. So he wore it loose. On this occasion, as he bailed out he slipped
> out of the harness and it tangled around his foot. That meant that he dangled
> head down in his chute as he came to earth. He was badly shook up on landing
> and hospitalized with severe cuts and bruises and a good deal of shock. After
> he recovered he was returned to duty. At that time we needed 65 missions to go
> home. He had 62, Only three more to go. But he refused to ever fly again. This
> was serious business with a war on. He was sent to London and a staff of
> psychiatrists worked on him, but he wouldn't fly. Then they said if he flew as
> an observer on the lead aircraft he could get 1½ missions credit for each
> mission, He could fly two and get credit for three, and go home. He still
> refused to fly. What was to be done? You can't really court marshal a man with
> 62 missions for cowardice in face of the enemy. But he still wouldn't fly. But
> everyone else in the 344th damn well had to fly. Feelings were running high.
> The talk around the group was, "If I have to fly, then he has to fly. No free
> lunch. He had a bad bailout? Too frigging bad. We all have our troubles." My
> pilot Paul Shorts said, "he was weak". When his name was brought up, the
> universal response was disgust. Then one day he was gone. Fast forward 15 years
> to a reunion of the 344th Bomb Group. Who should walk in but our old friend
> Captain Johnson. No one spoke to him. Many just turned their backs on him. I
> felt sorry for him. But while we were risking our necks over Germany and losing
> good men, he was curled up and whining under a blanket. He flew with us, but
> not a single man in the 344th considered him to be one of us.
> 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 in message >...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:05 -0500, "Tony Volk"
> > wrote:
>
> >p.s.- wasn't it a well established phenomenon in Vietnam that pilots
> >generally went "candy-assed" when they got close to the end of their tour?
> >so much so that they were rotated out of Pack VI for their last five or ten?
> >
> >> YUP !
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
>
> NOPE! You might want to read When Thunder Rolled for my description of
> the last mission of my tour in which two of the seven flying from my
> squadron were lost and I recovered back at Korat with ten pounds of
> fuel left in the jet.
>
> Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
> the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
> inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
> over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
> the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.

That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
crew?

~Michael

Mike Marron wrote:
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>> "M. J. Powell" wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I saw a paratroop sergeant break down in tears on television
>>> once, after describing his experiences in NI. A paratroop sergeant!
>>> The toughest of the tough.

It takes a tough man to cry and there are times when others admire the
person for showing some human emotion!

>> It's not what you do on television that counts. It is what you do
>> in combat that counts. No Air Medals for TV appearances.

The trouble with some is that they believe that the Hollywood film industry,
like any other of the other film industries portray life as the real thing.
This is a dangerous thing and you don't get a new game play when dead.

> Also, the true test of one's character is judged by what he does when
> no one is looking. No Air Medals for Autocollimator appearances.

Richard.

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: (Michael)
>Date: 2/5/04 9:52 AM Pacific

>That's terrible that after flying all those missions it ended so
>shamefully. He flew 62 missions, so I can't be critical of him, but
>your group has every right to be. Did you ever talk with your group
>mates about how they felt they would have reacted in the same
>situation? I honestly have no idea whether I'd be able to get back in
>a plane after something like that. I guess nobody does until they're
>faced with the situation.
>
>~Michael
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>>
>> I am only telling you this story because he passed away two years ago. I
>won't
>> reveal his identity. Let's call him Captain Johnson.
>> Captain Johnson's plane was badly hit over the target. He and his crew
>bailed
>> out. But Johnson never liked to keep his chute harness buckled tight. It
>gave
>> him cramps. So he wore it loose. On this occasion, as he bailed out he
>slipped
>> out of the harness and it tangled around his foot. That meant that he
>dangled
>> head down in his chute as he came to earth. He was badly shook up on
>landing
>> and hospitalized with severe cuts and bruises and a good deal of shock.
>After
>> he recovered he was returned to duty. At that time we needed 65 missions to
>go
>> home. He had 62, Only three more to go. But he refused to ever fly again.
>This
>> was serious business with a war on. He was sent to London and a staff of
>> psychiatrists worked on him, but he wouldn't fly. Then they said if he
>flew as
>> an observer on the lead aircraft he could get 1½ missions credit for each
>> mission, He could fly two and get credit for three, and go home. He still
>> refused to fly. What was to be done? You can't really court marshal a man
>with
>> 62 missions for cowardice in face of the enemy. But he still wouldn't fly.
>But
>> everyone else in the 344th damn well had to fly. Feelings were running
>high.
>> The talk around the group was, "If I have to fly, then he has to fly. No
>free
>> lunch. He had a bad bailout? Too frigging bad. We all have our troubles."
>My
>> pilot Paul Shorts said, "he was weak". When his name was brought up, the
>> universal response was disgust. Then one day he was gone. Fast forward 15
>years
>> to a reunion of the 344th Bomb Group. Who should walk in but our old friend
>> Captain Johnson. No one spoke to him. Many just turned their backs on him.
>I
>> felt sorry for him. But while we were risking our necks over Germany and
>losing
>> good men, he was curled up and whining under a blanket. He flew with us,
>but
>> not a single man in the 344th considered him to be one of us.
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Thousands of men were wounded, crashed mauled and they returned to duty and did
the job they were trained to do. No free lunch. And no browny points for
almost.

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

On 5 Feb 2004 10:01:30 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>>
>> Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
>> the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
>> inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
>> over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
>> the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.
>
>That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
>assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
>I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
>get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
>think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
>pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
>crew?

Lemme read that again slowly. You're asking a tactical aviator if
there "may be a completely different mindset for a fighter pilot...."

That's the very essence of the profession!!!!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Sometimes Art, you show positive genius in misunderstanding people.
>>
>>Mike

>
>It's one of my strong points.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

No Art, it's one of your cheap points...you so much want to make
a sharp retort that, even though you perfectly knew what was
meant up thread, you grabbed the 'cheap' opportunity.

It does nothing for your reputation sir. Strange that you'd do
that.
--

-Gord.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:41:40 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:26:19 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know who you were talking about, since I don't read Kramer's stuff any
>>more. I was responding to comments made by Tony and, for whatever reason I think
>>too unimportant to seek out, it led me to believe that there was a reference to
>>comments made about our President's military aviation career.
>>>
>>>
>>> The incident you refer to after four years of flying service including
>>> UPT, operational qualification in the F-102 and achieving operational
>>> alert status in the TANG was a request for four months detached duty
>>> at Montgomery while working on a political campaign. The New York
>>> Times has reported the corrected details of the events. Bush was
>>> unable to meet commitments. He requested and received approval to make
>>> up drill periods at a later time. This is standard ANG procedure.
>>>
>>> He was current in a "combat aircraft in use in Viet Nam". The F-102
>>> (including ANG crews) was deployed at Udorn, Danang and Tan Son Nhut
>>> among other place.
>>
>>If I was an F-102 pilot who was hot to trot, I think I might have volunteered to
>>transition into one of the birds actively used in the shooting war, like the
>>F-105, or whatever equipment they were then using for top covers.
>
>"Top covers"?? What the hell are they? Do you mean MiGCAP? Not a
>specialized mission for most of the war, usually flown by F-4s.
>Primary job was ground attack, not traditional "fighter" against
>"fighter" stuff. F-102s were deployed for airbase defense intercept
>duty throughout the war.
>
>Remember, Bush was ANG, not active force, hence he would have needed
>to move out of state and establish residence to find a unit with one
>of those aircraft types, which would probably not have gotten him
>deployed anyway. Your whole postulate is a non-starter here.
>>>
>>> So, follow the thread, contribute relevantly, get your facts straight,
>>> and reduce the level of your personal agenda.
>>
>>Would you care to comment on his submission of a "volunteer for o/s duty"
>>statement when he knew or should have known that he had insufficient flying time
>>in the bird to be favorably considered? All he had to do was to ask around, and
>>he'd have learned that they wanted people with more hours than he had. Excuse
>>me if I conclude that he was just going through the motions but I can't think
>>of any other reason for volunteering for something you know you're not going to
>>get.
>
>Volunteering means a requirement exists and if your volunteer
>statement is accepted, you are eligible. There might have been a
>"desired" hours requirement, but it was a long way from "hard and
>fast" if you were current in the system.
>
>I flew my first F-105 combat to NVN, right out of training with less
>than 120 hours after undergraduate pilot training. I flew my first F-4
>combat, again to NVN with less than 30 hours in the F-4C (the combat
>was in the F-4E).
>
>I don't think lack of hours was any sort of protection from
>deployment.
dont forget that we were putting tanker pilots into F-105 aircraft
also. And correct me if im wrong, but the biggest contribution that
the reserves/ANG had to make to the effort during the 50-70's were the
pilots. Even in Korea ANG pilots would just transition into the newer
aircraft.Aircraft may be different, but tactics pretty much reamin the
same. But saying that, i wouldnt want a Air/AIr guy all of a sudden
moving mud. But i can understand what Ed is saying. It wasnt until
1970's with the A-7 that the Reserves/ANG got first line equipment
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Mr. Kramer, Mr. Rasimus, Gentlemen (I presume no ladies here, if so, please
beg my pardon),

Have you ever thought that the poor guy felt that his luck run out?

Mr. Kramer can imagine that; he was fired upon and probably scared sh*tless
while putting the pipper over the darn target, but would recuperate once on
the ground. Let me tell you something; not all of US can do that. I used to
be an English translator for Serbian Surveyor Engineer and we were plotting
a pipeline for the ethnically mixed village just after the war in Bosnia. It
was deep snow and TRIPLE foward lines (Serbs, Muslims and Croats were
slaughtering each other with gusto) running through the village. It was not
a minefield , but mined AREA. I went first, knowing something about mines
since our guide lost his leg on "plastic canned pastette" mine with a nice
step-star on the top. I knew that they are almost useless in the deep snow
of Bosnia-just don't follow the steps! I had a sip of moonshine brandy so my
glasses (I wear a THICK glasses) wouldn't get foggy, got some Dutch courage
and rolled on, translating to my Canadian boss what my engineer had to say
(did I forget that Canadian guy was former soldier?). Trenches were in
chriss-cross, all armies used same communications but there were shallow and
mined as well with "Jumping-Jack-Flash" mines (push-pull activated
black-powder propelled mines that would explode at 1.5-2m, increasing the
range of lethality) that took the left-eye-vision from my friend (other eye
saved by the rock, but his face was cut with shrapnels). We finally roughly
marked the pipeline path (partly because we were drunk, partly because we
couldn't walk straight enough to measure the distance because of bloody
mines and tranches), but that was curled by using the polyethylene pipes
that run in rolls so they were placed AROUND the mines... and quite shallow.

After that, the Raven said: "Nevermore!".

Alas, I got employed for the simmilar job in Croatia, but for demining
company. Same, random mine placement, foward lines often mined by the both
sides one next to the other! I had the urge to urinate (so did my friend
deminer) so we went in the bushes. Then I noticed a cut red tape saying
"MINES! DO NOT CROSS!". I got frozen. I looked around and saw a well known
can-mines ("meat potato", anti-personell mine No.2, wrist-cutter) with
detonator No.8. I froze. It was summer, and DET-8 can be triggered by the
simple chemical reaction... if you pee on one, for example. If I just didn't
translate the blody AP Mine manual for the firm! I thought what funny
epitaph will be put on my grave-"died because he peed on one". My friend
yelled: "are you finished?" I muttered: "not yet, but we both will be soon.
GET US OUT OF THE BLOODY MINEFIELD!". The trainee with a dog from the South
Africa heard me yelling in Croatian (Serbo-Croatian, actually), but he
understood the universal word MINE. He took a dog which had a little
problems with detection-he could smell a mine, but not always react!

Somehow he found our traces in the red-dust (dalmatian Terra Rosa) and got
us out. I was devastated. I got back to the office and had a 1,5l of the
moonshine (it is legal here) and passed out. I quit next morning. I told the
guys the first expirience with mines, and they understood my attitude. After
all, I built entire administrative infrastructure, translated demining
manual from Bosnian into English (Bosnian is like Australian English,
Croatian like British, Serbian like American English, comprede?).

I got all back payment, a big farewell and still did the job for them...
from my house on my laptop.

They never called me a coward! I still have the nightmares of being marroned
with my trusty Lada with 200,000 miles on the clock in the middle of the
minefield... with no signal on the cell phone. I never went back for my
stuff to that place, although I designed kennels for the dogs. The entire
training site was moved 2 km closer to the road because dogs could not smell
dud (training) mines because of the scent of the REAL ones. I was jumping to
help whenever the car (darn Mitsubishi) got broken.

So, put yourself in the position upside-down on your chute, your head
dangling and your leg strained in an attempt to hold the chute still on you.
Do you feel lucky?

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

On Feb 4 2004 (Mike Marron) quoted John F. Kennedy
""War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation in prestige that the warrior does today."

In 1963 a VQ-2 Elint collection mission was planned in coordination with
other collectors, as one of VQ-2's missions at that time.

Two A3D-2Q (EA-3B) and one WV-2Q (EC-121M) flew to the Black Sea. One
A3D-2Q was to penetrate low-level under radar for 60 miles over Yalta,
then pop up
to hopefully cause Soviet Union radars to light up, and scram back over
the Black Sea. (A well practiced loft and toss maneuver from the A3D
Heavy Attack program). The other collectors would then document the
transmissions, ie., standard Elint stuff.

However the Navy CDR pilot of the probe aborted the mission just before
landfall, turned around and returned to the staging airfield. He was a
combat carrier pilot in WWII, and Heavy Attack pilot in VC and VAH
squadrons when they had the nuclear attack role 1948 - 1956, and had no
qualms about dropping a nuclear weapon if the flag went up in those
days.

The CDR, whom no other officers would talk to, was flown back to Rota,
VQ-2's homebase, then sent back to the United States for Courts Martial
(or some other action). I flew with him, as I had completed ten years
service and was leaving the Navy. He talked to me on the flight back to
Philadelphia, in a confessional type of way (we had a history together
that allowed that).

His position was that he was a patriot, and had risked his life many
times to defend the United States. His decision not to overfly was not,
in his view, an act of cowardice, as he was confident that he and his
crew would have successfully returned. His judgment was that such
provocative missions were wrong, and he could no longer conscientiously
or morally participate. He did not "go public" to push his views ie.,
did not have a political agenda; he gave up his career, retirement etc.,
as a matter of conscience. He was hoping that he could avoid other
punishment, but realized that he might not.

Chuck Huber (VC-8, VAH-1, FAITCLANT, VQ-2 - 1953 to 1963)







HEAVY ATTACK COMPOSITE (VC-5,6,7,8,9) WEBSITE
http://community.webtv.net/charles379/USNComposite

FAIRECONRON ONE AND TWO (VQ-1/2) CASUALTIES
http://www.anzwers.org/free/navyscpo4/Chuck_Huber_AirCrew.html

> (Chuck) wrote:

>On Feb 4 2004 (Mike Marron) quoted
>John F. Kennedy ""War will exist until that distant day when the
>conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation in prestige that
>the warrior does today."

>In 1963 a VQ-2 Elint collection mission was planned in coordination with
>other collectors, as one of VQ-2's missions at that time.

>Two A3D-2Q (EA-3B) and one WV-2Q (EC-121M) flew to the Black Sea. One
>A3D-2Q was to penetrate low-level under radar for 60 miles over Yalta,
>then pop up
>to hopefully cause Soviet Union radars to light up, and scram back over
>the Black Sea. (A well practiced loft and toss maneuver from the A3D
>Heavy Attack program). The other collectors would then document the
>transmissions, ie., standard Elint stuff.

>However the Navy CDR pilot of the probe aborted the mission just before
>landfall, turned around and returned to the staging airfield. He was a
>combat carrier pilot in WWII, and Heavy Attack pilot in VC and VAH
>squadrons when they had the nuclear attack role 1948 - 1956, and had no
>qualms about dropping a nuclear weapon if the flag went up in those
>days.

>The CDR, whom no other officers would talk to, was flown back to Rota,
>VQ-2's homebase, then sent back to the United States for Courts Martial
>(or some other action). I flew with him, as I had completed ten years
>service and was leaving the Navy. He talked to me on the flight back to
>Philadelphia, in a confessional type of way (we had a history together
>that allowed that).

>His position was that he was a patriot, and had risked his life many
>times to defend the United States. His decision not to overfly was not,
>in his view, an act of cowardice, as he was confident that he and his
>crew would have successfully returned. His judgment was that such
>provocative missions were wrong, and he could no longer conscientiously
>or morally participate. He did not "go public" to push his views ie.,
>did not have a political agenda; he gave up his career, retirement etc.,
>as a matter of conscience. He was hoping that he could avoid other
>punishment, but realized that he might not.

Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward. The author of the story (e.g:
Kramer) is the real coward. As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 5 Feb 2004 10:01:30 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >>
> >> Statistically the most dangerous missions on a 100 mission tour were
> >> the first ten and the last ten. The first because you were scared and
> >> inexperienced, the last because there was a tendency to get
> >> over-aggressive and feel a bit immortal. Many guys were trying to win
> >> the war on their last couple before they completed and went home.
> >
> >That's suprising to hear. I think most (unexperienced) people just
> >assume that close to the end of a tour a man will start to get jumpy.
> >I've read multiple times that heavy bomber guys in the ETO started to
> >get more nervous the closer they got to the end of the tours. Do you
> >think there was maybe a completely different mindset for a fighter
> >pilot (from any war) than there would have been for a heavy bomber
> >crew?
>
> Lemme read that again slowly. You're asking a tactical aviator if
> there "may be a completely different mindset for a fighter pilot...."
>
> That's the very essence of the profession!!!!

Sorry, should have said do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with,
but I'm wondering if that carries over into their outlook on the end
of a tour. Does one tend to view it as "I've got this in the bag" and
the other think "The numbers are aginst me, I'm dead"? Or does it
wind up being each individual is different and you can't judge a
group?

~Michael

>do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
>general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
>missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition). I know numerous bomber
pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some fighter pilots who do not.
The only difference in plying our unique trades is that my "wingmen" fly in the
same jet with me.


BUFDRVR

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

On 06 Feb 2004 22:10:24 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
>>general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
>>missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with
>
>I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
>pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
>correct me if that's not the generalized definition). I know numerous bomber
>pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some fighter pilots who do not.
>The only difference in plying our unique trades is that my "wingmen" fly in the
>same jet with me.
>
>
>BUFDRVR

Absolutely! Read the chapter in When Thunder Rolled, titled "Pilots
Flying Fighters". I learned long ago that "fighter pilot" is a state
of mind. The day I stood on the ramp at Edwards enroute to another
base and watched a B-52 come down initial and fly an overhead pattern,
I said, 'that guy is a fighter pilot'. Similarly, I've known a lot of
folks over the years who had the assignment, but weren't fighter
pilots--simply pilots who flew fighters.

I do like your "generalized definition" though.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>someone wrote:

>>do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
>>general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
>>missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with

>I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
>pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
>correct me if that's not the generalized definition).

That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
etc. etc. etc....

>I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
>fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.

That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:58:29 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>>someone wrote:
>
>>>do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
>>>general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
>>>missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with
>
>>I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
>>pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
>>correct me if that's not the generalized definition).
>
>That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
>lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
>investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
>lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
>etc. etc. etc....

You've broken the code. Add the caveat, that you only gain the title
when someone else gives it and you've got the basics down.
>
>>I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
>>fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.
>
>That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

We aren't always in total control of our future. Sometimes, you can
bring together the talent, the desire and the opportunity with the
resultant being that you achieve your goal. But, probably more often,
someone has the attitude but not the opportunity. The assignment isn't
available. Then, the objective is achieved by carrying the attitude
into the assignment, whatever it is.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>>I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
>>>pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
>>>correct me if that's not the generalized definition).

>>That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
>>lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
>>investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
>>lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
>>etc. etc. etc....

>You've broken the code. Add the caveat, that you only gain the title
>when someone else gives it and you've got the basics down.

While I was finishing up my civilian commercial/instrument ground
school back in 1987, the instructor (an old P-51 and B-29 pilot
curmudgeon) once remarked (under his breath) that I should become
a fighter pilot (FWIW). Alas, by that time I was already 26 years of
age...

>>>I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
>>>fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.

>>That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
>>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

>We aren't always in total control of our future. Sometimes, you can
>bring together the talent, the desire and the opportunity with the
>resultant being that you achieve your goal. But, probably more often,
>someone has the attitude but not the opportunity. The assignment isn't
>available. Then, the objective is achieved by carrying the attitude
>into the assignment, whatever it is.

Well said as usual and I salute BUFDRVR.

>
>That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt. All
flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
much job satisfaction.

Just a thought.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

> (Krztalizer) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
>>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

>You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over a
>downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles out
>to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt.

Actually, having done my fair share of lifeguard flights (fixed wing)
I know the feeling very well.

>All flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
>doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
>much job satisfaction.

My sentiments exactly! I'd much prefer to fly my trike 1-up at 65 kts.
than fly as a backseater in an F-14 or F-15E on the far side of mach
one.

>>The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.
>
>That's a big difference though.

I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
coordinate with my team.

>It's beyond me why anyone would
>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

I chose a BUFF over an F-16 and an F-15C, in fact the only difficulty I may
have had in chosing would have been if an F-15E were available, and even then I
think I would have taken the BUFF. I'm the opposite of you, for the life of me,
I can't figure out why anyone would take a fighter, particularly an F-15C. Sure
you have a great time at RED FLAG, but when it comes time for the real deal,
you're a spectator. As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber
want to be ;)


BUFDRVR

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

>You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over
>a
>downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles
>out
>to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt.

Can I get an Amen? I thought I had a real "hairy" Belgrade sortie one night
during OAF until I met one of the helicopter pilots who scooped up the downed
F-117 pilot, his story put mine to shame. From a bomber perspective, no F-16
pilot will know the thrill of dropping a half mile long string of weapons and
hearing the ETAC on the radio say you scattered the entire force that was
bearing down on him just minutes earlier.


BUFDRVR

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

> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>That's a big difference though.

>I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
>coordinate with my team.

OK. If you say so.

>>It's beyond me why anyone would
>>choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
>>vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

>I chose a BUFF over an F-16 and an F-15C, in fact the only difficulty I may
>have had in chosing would have been if an F-15E were available, and even then I
>think I would have taken the BUFF. I'm the opposite of you, for the life of me, I can't
>figure out why anyone would take a fighter, particularly an F-15C.

Er um, you need your fuggen head examined boy! ;)

>Sure you have a great time at RED FLAG, but when it comes time for the real deal,
>you're a spectator.

Huh?

>As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if you aren't carrying double
>digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber want to be ;)

Beam me up Scotty!! ;))

>>Sure you have a great time at RED FLAG, but when it comes time for the real
>deal,
>>you're a spectator.
>
>Huh?

When's the last time a USAF F-15C shot down an enemy fighter? How many USAF
F-15C kills have there been since Desert Storm? I'm willing to bet I had more
sorties employing weapons during OAF then total USAF F-15C air-to-air kills in
all conflicts. Throw in the additional fact that there are well over 200 F-15C
and you can see that as far as actually shooting at someone in combat, if your
an F-5C pilot, your chances are very slim. On the other hand, if you're a B-52
crewmember and aren't in the middle of upgrade, initial qual training or away
at SOS, and a conflict arises that lasts more than 90 days, you are sure to
drop weapons "in anger". This is not to say the F-15C is not doing an important
mission. Its mere presence deters enemy fighters from even attempting to mess
with a strike package. However, I'd rather have a more solid, tangible
contribution.


BUFDRVR

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

On 07 Feb 2004 02:50:56 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>>The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.

Must make formation approaches a whole lot easier.

>I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
>coordinate with my team.

Must make NORDO communication a whole lot harder. Wing dips, tail
shakes and hand signals probably don't get noticed in the backseats.
>
> As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
>you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber
>want to be ;)

Carried double digits of iron quite regularly. Still, I think I'd be a
bit apprehensive if I had to engage a MiG while carrying those
many-digits in a BUFF.

"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
> >choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
> >vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).
>
> You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over
a
> downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles
out
> to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt. All
> flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
> doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
> much job satisfaction.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR

Thanks, Gord, you took the words right out of my mouth.

George Z.
(USAF - Air Rescue Service)
>
> Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
> reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.
>

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
>>coordinate with my team.

>Must make NORDO communication a whole lot harder. Wing dips, tail
>shakes and hand signals probably don't get noticed in the backseats.

BUFDRVR -- 0
FIGHTERPILOT -- 1

>> As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
>>you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber
>>want to be ;)

>Carried double digits of iron quite regularly. Still, I think I'd be a
>bit apprehensive if I had to engage a MiG while carrying those
>many-digits in a BUFF.

BUFDRVR -- 0
FIGHTERPILOT -- 2

>"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
>from the target."

BUFDRVR -- 0
FIGHTERPILOT -- 3

> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Huh?

>When's the last time a USAF F-15C shot down an enemy fighter? How many USAF
>F-15C kills have there been since Desert Storm? I'm willing to bet I had more
>sorties employing weapons during OAF then total USAF F-15C air-to-air kills in
>all conflicts. Throw in the additional fact that there are well over 200 F-15C
>and you can see that as far as actually shooting at someone in combat, if your
>an F-5C pilot, your chances are very slim. On the other hand, if you're a B-52
>crewmember and aren't in the middle of upgrade, initial qual training or away
>at SOS, and a conflict arises that lasts more than 90 days, you are sure to
>drop weapons "in anger". This is not to say the F-15C is not doing an important
>mission. Its mere presence deters enemy fighters from even attempting to mess
>with a strike package. However, I'd rather have a more solid, tangible
>contribution.

Good explanation, however, even if I *never* fired a shot in anger I'd
still take an Eagle over a BUFF anyday. Why you ask? Well, if I have
to explain, you wouldn't understand...

>>>>The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.
>
>Must make formation approaches a whole lot easier.
>

Depends on who your "wingman" is...

>>I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
>>coordinate with my team.
>
>Must make NORDO communication a whole lot harder. Wing dips, tail
>shakes and hand signals probably don't get noticed in the backseats.

Very true. Since the intercom is the primary means of transmitting the bailout
order, loss of it usually means those without flight controls get an uneasy
feeling.

>Carried double digits of iron quite regularly. Still, I think I'd be a
>bit apprehensive if I had to engage a MiG while carrying those
>many-digits in a BUFF.

Nahh, you can run away nearly as easy with or without weapons (altitude
dependant).


BUFDRVR

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

>Why you ask? Well, if I have
>to explain, you wouldn't understand...

No need to explain, despite their rather passive performance in the latest
conflicts, I've yet to meet an Eagle pilot trying to get an assignment as a
BUFF pilot. It must be brain damage resulting from too many 7 G turns ;)

Bottom line, there are people who choose aviation as a career for several
reasons, you'll likely find as many happy KC-135 crewmembers as happy Eagle
pilots, and an equal disgruntled. The key is to find your place. Luckily for
me, I always dreamed about hauling lots of explosives and the reality hasn't
dissappointed one bit.


BUFDRVR

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

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/7/04 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 07 Feb 2004 02:50:56 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>>>The only difference in plying our unique trades is
>>>>that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.
>
>Must make formation approaches a whole lot easier.
>
>>I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
>>coordinate with my team.
>
>Must make NORDO communication a whole lot harder. Wing dips, tail
>shakes and hand signals probably don't get noticed in the backseats.
>>
>> As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
>>you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a
>bomber
>>want to be ;)
>
>Carried double digits of iron quite regularly. Still, I think I'd be a
>bit apprehensive if I had to engage a MiG while carrying those
>many-digits in a BUFF.
>
>"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
>from the target."
>

There is always a "TO" the target. There isn't always a "FROM" the target.


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

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
> not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
> pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.

With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
space,
it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
reached
a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
that,
I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
personal
limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
that of the era.

That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
different expectation
of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
present doesn't alter the
fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
away from the duty that
they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
now he would probably get
more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
there would still be that
thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...

> The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.

Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
personally, only through his
posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
reveal the true identity of
the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
with what *they felt* was
cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
coward in the face of strong evidence
to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
that you apologise unreservedly.

He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
weren't aware of the details)
by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
whom he spoke. He told the story
only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
by reading it.

I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
unbecoming'.

BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?

> As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
> of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."

Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
about human nature.
If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
across the mouth of a cannon.
He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
jaded Empire
decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.

Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
that he *was* a brother to
them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
betrayal of that brotherhood
even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
fate by some casual acquaintance or
by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
'family'.

I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
somewhere similar.

I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
appropriate adjustments.

The CO

>Subject: Re: OT Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: "The CO"
>Date: 2/7/04 5:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>> Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
>> not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
>> pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.
>
>With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
>space,
>it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
>reached
>a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
>that,
>I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
>personal
>limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
>that of the era.
>
>That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
>different expectation
>of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
>present doesn't alter the
>fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
>away from the duty that
>they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
>now he would probably get
>more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
>there would still be that
>thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...
>
>> The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.
>
>Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
>personally, only through his
>posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
>reveal the true identity of
>the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
>with what *they felt* was
>cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
>coward in the face of strong evidence
>to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
>that you apologise unreservedly.
>
>He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
>weren't aware of the details)
>by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
>whom he spoke. He told the story
>only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
>by reading it.
>
>I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
>unbecoming'.
>
>BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?
>
>> As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
>> of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."
>
>Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
>about human nature.
>If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
>across the mouth of a cannon.
>He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
>jaded Empire
>decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.
>
>Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
>that he *was* a brother to
>them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
>betrayal of that brotherhood
>even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
>fate by some casual acquaintance or
>by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
>'family'.
>
>I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
>somewhere similar.
>
>I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
>appropriate adjustments.
>
>The CO
>
>

I have found over the years that I can never predict who will be reading what I
post. Recently the daughter of a man I flew with in the 494th squadron found my
website and questionrd me at length about her dad. I knew her dad quite well.
He passed away recently. But had I witrten anything negative about him and
revealed his identity it would only break his daughter heart So I never, never,
never reveal names when it might cause anyone hurt. On my website "I am going
to die today" is a case in point Imagine had I revealed his identity and his
children read it now. It would be a tragedy. And creating tragedy is not why I
post my experiences. Thank you for your kind words and support. I appreciate
it.



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

>From: "The CO"
>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>> Interesting story. JFK's "conscientious objector" quote sprang to mind
>> not because I'm a dove, but because after flying 62 missions "the
>> pilot who wouldn't fly" is not a coward.
>
>With the benefit of being 50 years and half a world displaced in time and
>space,
>it would seem to most of us in this here and now that this man had simply
>reached
>a point where he could not continue, and given the circumstances that caused
>that,
>I cannot help feeling some sympathy towards a man who had reached his
>personal
>limit. Our understanding of this sort of thing here and now is well beyond
>that of the era.
>
>That said, in the there and then where this took place, there was a totally
>different expectation
>of behaviour, and whether it is 'right' by the more liberal attitudes of the
>present doesn't alter the
>fact that in that there and then, his peers felt contempt that he would walk
>away from the duty that
>they continued to do, day after day, night after night. In the here and
>now he would probably get
>more sympathy and understanding, but even now, within his own fraternity,
>there would still be that
>thought amongst them that he was no longer one of them...
>
>> The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.
>
>Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark. I do not know Mr. Kramer
>personally, only through his
>posts to this group. To take his story (which I note carefully did *not*
>reveal the true identity of
>the man in question) and turn that explanation of how his fraternity dealt
>with what *they felt* was
>cowardice into a direct personal attack, specifically naming *him* as a
>coward in the face of strong evidence
>to the contrary, is, in my not so humble opinion, contemptible and requires
>that you apologise unreservedly.
>
>He told the story but preserved the dignity of the mans family (who perhaps
>weren't aware of the details)
>by maintaining his anonymity to all but those who were there and knew of
>whom he spoke. He told the story
>only after the man in question had died and could not be distressed further
>by reading it.
>
>I consider your accusation of cowardice reprehensible and 'conduct
>unbecoming'.
>
>BTW, how much combat experience do *you* have?
>
>> As Ghandi said, "A coward is incapable
>> of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."
>
>Ghandi didn't know **** about combat, and frankly, he also didn't know ****
>about human nature.
>If he'd pulled on his politics 50 years earlier he would have been tied
>across the mouth of a cannon.
>He was simply fortunate to be in a time and place where a tired and somewhat
>jaded Empire
>decided it wasn't worth the trouble of trying to keep their regency.
>
>Whatever love Art and his colleagues felt for this man (and I don't doubt
>that he *was* a brother to
>them during his 62) this actually makes what they doubtless considered his
>betrayal of that brotherhood
>even worse to *them*. Would you feel worse if you were abandoned to your
>fate by some casual acquaintance or
>by someone you have gone through fire and death with and considered to be
>'family'.
>
>I guess to understand this concept, you had to *be there* or at least been
>somewhere similar.
>
>I strongly recommend that you carefully reconsider your statement and make
>appropriate adjustments.
>
>The CO
>

In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11. Take
what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire. He has no military
experience.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

<Snip>

> I never, never, never reveal names when it might cause anyone hurt. On
my website "I am going
> to die today" is a case in point Imagine had I revealed his identity and
his
> children read it now. It would be a tragedy.

Quite right.

> And creating tragedy is not why I
> post my experiences.

Noted.

> Thank you for your kind words and support. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Your experiences are part of history and should be
preserved.
Personal attacks for posting them for others to see are inappropriate under
the circumstances.

The CO

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.

Boggle! Some variant of the fairy tale about how it should only take a few
minutes to get fighters
hot loaded, crewed and airborne with ROE for hijacked airliners full of
people all sorted and ready to kick butt no doubt.

> Take what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire.

Given that tidbit I doubt there is sufficient salt on the planet.

> He has no military experience.

I Figured.

The CO

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>Good explanation, however, even if I *never* fired a shot in anger I'd
>still take an Eagle over a BUFF anyday. Why you ask? Well, if I have
>to explain, you wouldn't understand...
>

Christ marron, you remind me more and more every day of a little
boy jumping up and down piping "Hey guys!!...kin I play
too?...kin I?... kin I?..." <snort>

--

-Gord.

>"The CO" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.

>Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark.

Hey if you're that nieve as to buy into every one of Kramer's
self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories, that's YOUR problem
pal, not mine....

"Your stuff is the most interesting on this NG. You can't beat
being there no matter what. I look for your posts every time
I log on. Keep 'em flying."

-- Art Kramer bragging on himself while posing as "Autocollimator"

>B2431 ) wrote:

>In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.

Huh? Either post the exact comment where I specifically accused the
USAF of being "responsible for 9/11" or go back to your scintillating
"pitot tube" arguments with Tarver.

>Take what ever he says with how many grains of salt you desire. He has
>no military experience.

I only wish that I had your military experience! I wish...I wish!!

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Christ marron, you remind me more and more every day of a little
>boy jumping up and down piping "Hey guys!!...kin I play
>too?...kin I?... kin I?..." <snort>

Yet another poster with nothing to say exercising his right to say
it. Christ beaman you remind me more and more every day of
the annoying little gadfly that you are. Hope ya don't choke on
whatever it was that you just snorted.

>From: Mike Marron

<snip>
>
>"Your stuff is the most interesting on this NG. You can't beat
>being there no matter what. I look for your posts every time
>I log on. Keep 'em flying."
>
>-- Art Kramer bragging on himself while posing as "Autocollimator"
>
Prove it or retract it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 2/7/2004 10:48 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>B2431 ) wrote:
>
>>In a recent thread marron accused the USAF of being responsible for 9-11.
>
>Huh? Either post the exact comment where I specifically accused the
>USAF of being "responsible for 9/11" or go back to your scintillating
>"pitot tube" arguments with Tarver.
>

The thread starts at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=436a5d81.040107
1041.fe49dd9%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3DRon%2B(banmilk%40hotmail.com)%2B9%252F11%2 6meta%3Dgr
oup%253Drec.aviation.military.*

And has about 200 posts. Most seem to involve you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

> Hey if you're that nieve as to buy into every one of Kramer's
> self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories, that's YOUR problem
> pal, not mine....

If there is a problem, it's between your ears, not mine.
As for self aggrandising, who died and made you God?
As for mittyesque, I tell you three times that truth is infinitely
stranger than fiction, and you are infinitely strange.


The CO

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> I only wish that I had your military experience! I wish...I wish!!

I wish you had *any* military experience. You might conceivably spout less
bull****,
but then again, you have so much natural talent....
Perhaps one day your alligator mouth will insult someone in person and get
that
blowfly arse of yours kicked in the real world as well as in cyberspace.

The CO

>"The CO" > wrote:

>Perhaps one day your alligator mouth will insult someone in person and get
>that blowfly arse of yours kicked in the real world as well as in cyberspace.

Anytime, anywhere pal.


>The CO
^^^^^^^^

Sheeeeit.

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> >The CO
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Sheeeeit.

I *hold* that appointment. Your problem is?

The CO

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
> >general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
> >missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with
>
> I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
> pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
> correct me if that's not the generalized definition).

I in no way want to imply that bomber men are inferior to figthers.
They both have to be unshakeable and highly skilled and even the
bomber pilot has to be aggressive to a certain extent. But there has
to be a different mindset for the fighter pilot if he's going to be
successful at shooting other men out of the sky or streaking low
through flak to drop bombs, compared with the mind set of a bomber
that has to flying straight and level and take what get's thrown up at
him.

The whole reason I brought this up was while you hear of WWII heavy
bomber crews wearing thin toward the end of their tours, you don't
hear the same thing about their brothers escorting them in fighters.
I'm wondering if that was because of a different mind sets to begin
with, or if it was because of different circumstances (fighters
weren't being lost in as great of numbers and they could hunt their
enemies down and kill them instead of sitting there waiting to be hit
by them). Maybe if they had had a higher attrition rate, they would
have started getting jumpy too as their tours neared completion? But
according to Ed, in Vietnam that didn't happen among fighters, if any
thing they got more confident and aggressive as things wound down for
them.

~Michael

>Subject: Re: THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY
>From: (Michael)
>Date: 2/9/04 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...
>> >do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
>> >general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
>> >missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with
>>
>> I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the
>"fighter
>> pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled
>(someone
>> correct me if that's not the generalized definition).
>
>I in no way want to imply that bomber men are inferior to figthers.
>They both have to be unshakeable and highly skilled and even the
>bomber pilot has to be aggressive to a certain extent. But there has
>to be a different mindset for the fighter pilot if he's going to be
>successful at shooting other men out of the sky or streaking low
>through flak to drop bombs, compared with the mind set of a bomber
>that has to flying straight and level and take what get's thrown up at
>him.
>
>The whole reason I brought this up was while you hear of WWII heavy
>bomber crews wearing thin toward the end of their tours, you don't
>hear the same thing about their brothers escorting them in fighters.
>I'm wondering if that was because of a different mind sets to begin
>with, or if it was because of different circumstances (fighters
>weren't being lost in as great of numbers and they could hunt their
>enemies down and kill them instead of sitting there waiting to be hit
>by them). Maybe if they had had a higher attrition rate, they would
>have started getting jumpy too as their tours neared completion? But
>according to Ed, in Vietnam that didn't happen among fighters, if any
>thing they got more confident and aggressive as things wound down for
>them.
>
>~Michael


I was there right to the bitter end. And as time went on and men got killed
just before the war ended, it gave us all a lot to think about.. But in bombers
you can't be :"careful" You flew your last mission just like your first. It
was all SOP all the way. No wiggle room whatever. Go to my website and read "
The Last To Die".



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

> (Michael) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>The whole reason I brought this up was while you hear of WWII heavy
>bomber crews wearing thin toward the end of their tours, you don't
>hear the same thing about their brothers escorting them in fighters.

Probably the best narrative about fighter pilots that I've ever seen
was "A Fighter Pilot's Story" which aired on PBS some time ago.

Quentin Aanenson, a P-47 pilot, talks about the trials and
tribulations of combat -- sans the usual bravado and chest thumping
(not entirely a bad thing, mind you) that goes on whenever a fighter
pilot has an audience.

One of the documentary's most poignant moments is when Aanenson,
an avid sportsman before the war, returns home and shoots a rabbit
while hunting in his native Loiusiana. Aanenson said killing the
animal made him feel sick afterwards, and he never fired a gun again.

Conversely, when I asked my Dad if he ever saw any NVA or Viet Cong
communists during his combat tour flying A-1's over SEA, he said
"Ya...a lot of DEAD ones!"

Then we went hunting.

>They both have to be unshakeable and highly skilled and even the
>bomber pilot has to be aggressive to a certain extent.

You should be just as agressive on a bomb run as you would in 6 G turn with an
enemy fighter. I used to tell my crew prior to the IP; "everyone get your fangs
out!!!"

>a different mindset for the fighter pilot if he's going to be
>successful at shooting other men out of the sky or streaking low
>through flak to drop bombs, compared with the mind set of a bomber
>that has to flying straight and level and take what get's thrown up at
>him.

Fortunately the "fly straight and level and take what's thrown up at you" era,
for the most part, died night #3 of Linebacker II. While we don't "streak"
through flak, we will "pop around" it, and while we obviously don't shoot other
people down, pressing your attack through a SAM salvo takes (IMHO) as much guts
and skill.

>The whole reason I brought this up was while you hear of WWII heavy
>bomber crews wearing thin toward the end of their tours, you don't
>hear the same thing about their brothers escorting them in fighters.

Because the attrition rate was orders of magnitude worse and the tactic of "fly
straight and level and take what's thrown up at you" tends to give you the
feeling, your fate is not in your hands, which tends to demoralize you, or
gives you a feeling of comfort. Unfortunately, for most people its the former.

>I'm wondering if that was because of a different mind sets to begin
>with, or if it was because of different circumstances

IMHO, it was the circumstances.


BUFDRVR

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

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 04:42:30 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"The CO" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
>>>The author of the story (e.g: Kramer) is the real coward.
>
>>Sir, I take very strong exception to this remark.
>
>Hey if you're that nieve as to buy into every one of Kramer's
>self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories, that's YOUR problem
>pal, not mine....
>
>"Your stuff is the most interesting on this NG. You can't beat
>being there no matter what. I look for your posts every time
>I log on. Keep 'em flying."
>
>-- Art Kramer bragging on himself while posing as "Autocollimator"

Mr Kramer served his Country in a highly honorable way. Something
that you are incapable of (probably due to your cowardice). You
are a buffoon and are an embarrassment to your country.

Al Minyard

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Hey if you're that nieve as to buy into every one of Kramer's
>>self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories, that's YOUR problem
>>pal, not mine....

>>"Your stuff is the most interesting on this NG. You can't beat
>>being there no matter what. I look for your posts every time
>>I log on. Keep 'em flying."

>>-- Art Kramer bragging on himself while posing as "Autocollimator"

>Mr Kramer served his Country in a highly honorable way.
>Something that you are incapable of (probably due to your cowardice).
>You are a buffoon and are an embarrassment to your country.

Well well well, Al Minyard's back again. It's good to have you back!
Where ya' been AL? I was afraid you'd been chased into the hills
by a bunch of torch-bearing, pitchfork-wielding Frenchmen after
they spotted the bolts in your neck. Listen up you ol' scrotum-faced
turd burglar, if I want any **** out of you I'll squeeze your head.
Nobody disputes that Kramer served his country honorably six
decades ago but ut that was then, this is now. Ya' gotta' admit
that stroking his cringing ego while posing as "Autocollimator" was
kinda' of a chickenous thing to do. In any event, welcome back.
I'm glad to see you and Kramer finally found a forum for channeling
all that anger...

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:07:20 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Hey if you're that nieve as to buy into every one of Kramer's
>>>self-aggrandizing, mittyesque war stories, that's YOUR problem
>>>pal, not mine....
>
>>>"Your stuff is the most interesting on this NG. You can't beat
>>>being there no matter what. I look for your posts every time
>>>I log on. Keep 'em flying."
>
>>>-- Art Kramer bragging on himself while posing as "Autocollimator"
>
>>Mr Kramer served his Country in a highly honorable way.
>>Something that you are incapable of (probably due to your cowardice).
>>You are a buffoon and are an embarrassment to your country.
>
>Well well well, Al Minyard's back again. It's good to have you back!
>Where ya' been AL? I was afraid you'd been chased into the hills
>by a bunch of torch-bearing, pitchfork-wielding Frenchmen after
>they spotted the bolts in your neck. Listen up you ol' scrotum-faced
>turd burglar, if I want any **** out of you I'll squeeze your head.
>Nobody disputes that Kramer served his country honorably six
>decades ago but ut that was then, this is now. Ya' gotta' admit
>that stroking his cringing ego while posing as "Autocollimator" was
>kinda' of a chickenous thing to do. In any event, welcome back.
>I'm glad to see you and Kramer finally found a forum for channeling
>all that anger...
>
Ye Gods, Marron is a bigger fool than even I suspected.

Al Minyard

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Well well well, Al Minyard's back again. It's good to have you back!
>>Where ya' been AL? I was afraid you'd been chased into the hills
>>by a bunch of torch-bearing, pitchfork-wielding Frenchmen after
>>they spotted the bolts in your neck. Listen up you ol' scrotum-faced
>>turd burglar, if I want any **** out of you I'll squeeze your head.
>>Nobody disputes that Kramer served his country honorably six
>>decades ago but ut that was then, this is now. Ya' gotta' admit
>>that stroking his cringing ego while posing as "Autocollimator" was
>>kinda' of a chickenous thing to do. In any event, welcome back.
>>I'm glad to see you and Kramer finally found a forum for channeling
>>all that anger...

>Ye Gods, Marron is a bigger fool than even I suspected.

*Weak*

That's bigger "fish" than you suspected, flameboy.