Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground. [Archive]

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 01:42 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Dave Eadsforth
>Date: 8/23/2004 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>
>>The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the ground
>>and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>>
>>
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>
>For a single pass at the target, that sounds okay - as long as the
>formation as a whole is mastered accurately. However, how did the
>formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
>aiming individually? The formation attack must be all or nothing,
>whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
>amongst the average ones.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
>--
>Dave Eadsforth
>

WE never flew missions as you described. You are not confusing us with the RAF
Bomber Command planes in a string are you you?

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

August 24th 04, 01:57 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time

>In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
>worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.

How the hell would you know?

>Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>

We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in? Not
ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.

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

Pete

August 24th 04, 03:38 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
it
> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>
> How the hell would you know?
>
> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> >
>
> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
Not
> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.

Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.

Pete

Brian Colwell

August 24th 04, 04:28 AM

B2431

August 24th 04, 04:40 AM

>From: "Pete"
>Date: 8/23/2004 9:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
>it
>> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>>
>> How the hell would you know?
>>
>> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>> >
>>
>> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
>Not
>> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
>
>Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.
>
>Pete

If art wanted to experience a real war I would have been glad to oblige by
having him next to me when I was in the Army in Viet Nam. Granted we had a
greater survival rate than the AAF did (before he got there) but he had a bed
to sleep in, hot meals and cold drinks. I don't think he would have lasted even
if he was 18 as I was.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 04:58 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 8/23/2004 8:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: "Pete"
>>Date: 8/23/2004 9:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>>> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>
>>> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
>>it
>>> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>>> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>>>
>>> How the hell would you know?
>>>
>>> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>>> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>>> >
>>>
>>> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
>>Not
>>> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
>>
>>Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.
>>
>>Pete
>
>If art wanted to experience a real war I would have been glad to oblige by
>having him next to me when I was in the Army in Viet Nam. Granted we had a
>greater survival rate than the AAF did (before he got there) but he had a bed
>to sleep in, hot meals and cold drinks. I don't think he would have lasted
>even
>if he was 18 as I was.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Are't you the big hero.

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

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 05:01 AM

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> > >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> > >From: (BUFDRVR)
> > >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >
> > >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little
wind
> it
> > >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months,
over
> > >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
> >
> > How the hell would you know?
> >
> > >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
> > >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> > >
> >
> > We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
> Not
> > ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
>
> Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.

What a hoot! A couple of weeks ago Art was hammering one of his own, and now
he hammers Bufdrvr when he supports his own argument. Then of course he had
to add that tagline of his about "real wars"...where are all of his usual
cast of posterior-embracing buddies now?

Brooks

>
> Pete
>
>

BUFDRVR

August 24th 04, 05:18 AM

ArtKramr wrote:

>>In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
>>worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>>Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>
>How the hell would you know?

Books, ever heard of them? Oh, I'm sorry that's right, you don't read books
about WW II because you subscribe to the "if you weren't there, you don't know
****" theory. The problem with your theory is that nearly all of the books I've
read have been written from first hand accounts of people who were there.

>>Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>>production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>>
>
>We never flew in "long trains".

I never said you did you ignorant old goof!

>What rinky dink air force were you in?

The one from the United States. The one that has come to dominate enemies like
the Air Force of your generation could only dream of.

>Too bad you never fought in a real war.

Well, I'm in good company. Kramer's "real wars" exclude everyone outside of the
World War II ETO from 1943-45. North Africa? Not real. Med? Not real. Pacific?
Please...not real. Korea? Not real. Vietnam? Not real. Desert Storm and all the
conflicts since then? Not real. In fact, I'm willing to bet the proud group of
"Kramer's not real warriors" will never stop growing.

I guess once you hit 80+ years of age its too hard to be self retrospective? If
I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the
mirror to shave.

BUFDRVR

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

Edwin

August 24th 04, 05:21 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 8/23/2004 8:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>From: "Pete"
> >>Date: 8/23/2004 9:38 PM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>
> >>"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >>> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>
> >>> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little
wind
> >>it
> >>> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months,
over
> >>> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
> >>>
> >>> How the hell would you know?
> >>>
> >>> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off
the
> >>> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you
in?
> >>Not
> >>> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
> >>
> >>Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.
> >>
> >>Pete
> >
> >If art wanted to experience a real war I would have been glad to oblige
by
> >having him next to me when I was in the Army in Viet Nam. Granted we had
a
> >greater survival rate than the AAF did (before he got there) but he had a
bed
> >to sleep in, hot meals and cold drinks. I don't think he would have
lasted
> >even
> >if he was 18 as I was.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
>
> Are't you the big hero.

Little ****y tonight there aren't we Art?

Better call the nurse for some more medication.

Have her unplug that phone line also!

Edwin

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 05:26 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Edwin"
>Date: 8/23/2004 9:21 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Little ****y tonight there aren't we Art?
>
>Better call the nurse for some more medication.
>
>
>Have her unplug that phone line also!
>
>Edwin
>

And your battle credentials were...?

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

August 24th 04, 05:29 AM

>I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the
>mirror to shave.
>
>

You still can't

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

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 05:58 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself in
the
> >mirror to shave.
> >
> >
>
> You still can't

Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people regress
to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Jack G

August 24th 04, 06:40 AM

Does Art know that he has become a very sad parody of himself? Does he know
that his behavior on this news group would be extremely hilarious were it
not for the slanderous remarks he makes to and about other veterans who
served honorably for their country in all capacities? Does he know that by
making such a complete ass of himself he denigrates the image of United
States service men and women who are currently serving? Didn't think so.

Jack G.

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself
in
> the
> > >mirror to shave.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You still can't
>
> Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people
regress
> to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.
>
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
>
>

Ragnar

August 24th 04, 07:57 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
it
> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>
> How the hell would you know?

And how would YOU know, Art? You wren't flying in 1937. Nor were you
flying in B-17's at all.

Looks like yet another example of Art's hypocracy. He even called himself
on it in a previous post:

"Let's suppose you hav never been laid but want to know what it is like. So
you
buy every book and read them carefully. Now you know. You feel quite expert
even though you have never actually been laid. But one day you meet a guy
who
has been laid and he tells you what it is like. But you are outraged. That
is
not what it said in the books. This guy is obviously a fraud, He knows
nothing
and you have the books to prove it. And these books are written by expertss
on
sex. So you know best. Now lets take war, Yu have never been to war but read
lot of books, reports etc so you feel you really have it all down cold. Then
you meet a guy who has actually been to war and what he tells you doesn't
agree
with what you read. So obviously this guy who has been to war knows nothing
while you who have never been to was know everything. You accuse him of
lying
and call him a fraud. Maybe you need to do two things:"

>
> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> >
>
> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
Not
> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.

So Art, regale us with all of your B-17 experiences. Whats that? You never
flew in B-17's? Then your opinion is worth spit.

Dave Eadsforth

August 24th 04, 09:38 AM

In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
>>However, how did the
>>formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
>>aiming individually?
>
>In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
>worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>
>>The formation attack must be all or nothing,
>>whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
>>amongst the average ones.
>
>Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>
Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
question!

I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
Groups?

If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Many thanks in advance,

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

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

buf3

August 24th 04, 12:46 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the ground
> and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>
>
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
time we usually flew in three ship formations.

Gene Myers

Dave Holford

August 24th 04, 02:01 PM

ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>
> How the hell would you know?
>
> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> >
>
> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in? Not
> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
>
> Arthur Kramer

Good grief Art, read what he said!

Dave

BUFDRVR

August 24th 04, 02:28 PM

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> What I meant to ask about was
>a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
>into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
>required for a particular target.

I'm not sure I understand the formation you're talking about. At typical B-17
formation (after early 1943) consisted of three groups (18-20 aircraft) flying
line a breast and staggered by altitude. There were times (I believe this was
done at Regensberg) when one of the three groups would fall in behind in order
to narrow the bombing pattern. Is this what you're thinking of?

BUFDRVR

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

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 02:45 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Dave Eadsforth
>Date: 8/24/2004 1:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>>
>>>However, how did the
>>>formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
>>>aiming individually?
>>
>>In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
>>worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
>>Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>>
>>>The formation attack must be all or nothing,
>>>whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
>>>amongst the average ones.
>>
>>Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>>production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>>
>Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
>question!
>
>I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
>a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
>into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
>required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
>effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
>versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
>Groups?
>
>If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
>Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
>attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.
>
>Many thanks in advance,
>
>Dave
>>
>>BUFDRVR
>>
>>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
>harelips
>>everyone on Bear Creek"
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
>--
>Dave Eadsforth
>

Thanks for realizing and admiting your errors Dave. B-17's flew the missions in
the same way B-24's. B-26's and A-26''s did. In tight formations as entire
squadrons within groups in defensive boxes.

>f someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
>Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
>attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

No options. We planned the mission and we flew the plan. We were not a bunch
of cowboys all in business for ourselves. We were well trained and disciplined
airmen. You have been listening to too many non combat wannabees making up crap
When someone tells you "what it was really like up there" ask them how many
missions they flew. If the answer is "none" disregard what they say. It will
probably either be all or partly wrong. Flying good tight formations was
essential to success. And holding those formations tight against the most
vicious attacks by fighters and or flak was a matter of life and death. It's
nice to read books about war. But no one ever sitting at home reading about war
ever got shot down in flames..

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

August 24th 04, 02:50 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 8/23/2004 10:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <lxAWc.2377$%11.2238@trnddc02>
>
>Does Art know that he has become a very sad parody of himself? Does he know
>that his behavior on this news group would be extremely hilarious were it
>not for the slanderous remarks he makes to and about other veterans who
>served honorably for their country in all capacities? Does he know that by
>making such a complete ass of himself he denigrates the image of United
>States service men and women who are currently serving? Didn't think so.
>
>Jack G.
>
>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself
>in
>> the
>> > >mirror to shave.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > You still can't
>>
>> Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people
>regress
>> to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Arthur Kramer
>>

Another bitter jealous wannabee raisies his ugly head. I think you would be
happier in a knitting NG. But I notice you read very word of every post I
write. Now tell us all about your intensive combat experience.No combat
experience? Go screw yourself.

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

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 03:01 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: "Jack G"
> >Date: 8/23/2004 10:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <lxAWc.2377$%11.2238@trnddc02>
> >
> >Does Art know that he has become a very sad parody of himself? Does he
know
> >that his behavior on this news group would be extremely hilarious were it
> >not for the slanderous remarks he makes to and about other veterans who
> >served honorably for their country in all capacities? Does he know that
by
> >making such a complete ass of himself he denigrates the image of United
> >States service men and women who are currently serving? Didn't think so.
> >
> >Jack G.
> >
> >
> >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > >I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at
myself
> >in
> >> the
> >> > >mirror to shave.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You still can't
> >>
> >> Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people
> >regress
> >> to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Arthur Kramer
> >>
>
> Another bitter jealous wannabee raisies his ugly head. I think you would
be
> happier in a knitting NG. But I notice you read very word of every post I
> write. Now tell us all about your intensive combat experience.No combat
> experience? Go screw yourself.

And yet *another* sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many
people regress
to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years; is this some kind
of obsessive/compulsive complex you are (not) dealing with, Art?

Brooks

>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 06:20 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (buf3)
>Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
>ground
>> and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>>
>>
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
>RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
>by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
>(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
>trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
>with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
>digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
>system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
>echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
>separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
>dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
>dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
>(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
>heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
>time we usually flew in three ship formations.
>
>Gene Myers
>

Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too few in
this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with all we
learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the USAF
was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns on
the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape of
the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or planes
that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape of
the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike photos?
Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very interested.
Thanks again for a good post.

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

B2431

August 24th 04, 08:05 PM

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 8/23/2004 8:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>From: "Pete"
>>>Date: 8/23/2004 9:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>>>> >Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>
>>>> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
>>>it
>>>> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months,
>over
>>>> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
>>>>
>>>> How the hell would you know?
>>>>
>>>> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>>>> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
>>>Not
>>>> ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.
>>>
>>>Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>If art wanted to experience a real war I would have been glad to oblige by
>>having him next to me when I was in the Army in Viet Nam. Granted we had a
>>greater survival rate than the AAF did (before he got there) but he had a
>bed
>>to sleep in, hot meals and cold drinks. I don't think he would have lasted
>>even
>>if he was 18 as I was.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>Are't you the big hero.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>

Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.

Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ArtKramr

August 24th 04, 08:35 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
>experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.
>
>Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
>who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I assume you
have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about. Anyone
not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not clutter
it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to share?
Well, where the hell are they?

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

Guy Alcala

August 24th 04, 09:45 PM

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> In article >, BUFDRVR
> > writes
> >Dave Eadsforth wrote:
> >
> >>However, how did the
> >>formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
> >>aiming individually?
> >
> >In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
> >worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
> >Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.
> >
> >>The formation attack must be all or nothing,
> >>whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
> >>amongst the average ones.
> >
> >Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
> >production line to an Me-109 pilot.
> >
> Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
> question!
>
> I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
> a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
> into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
> required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
> effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
> versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
> Groups?
>
> If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
> Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
> attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Depends on the period, but typically the wings would be 2-5miles in trail of each
other. At the IP, each wing would try and get the groups in trail, by the lead
group making a regular turn and the flanking (high and low ) groups turning early
or late. However, groups would stay at their same heights for bombing, which made
reassembly into the wing formation after exiting the target easier.

In practice, it often was difficult or impossible for the groups to get into trail,
so you might have the groups actually approaching the target on convergent courses,
sometimes simultaneously. This could cause problems if one group flew under
another at bombs away - see the fairly numerous photos of B-17s or B-24s destroyed
or damaged by being bombed by a/c of a higher group. For example, there's a widely
published sequence showing a B-17 under another which releases its bombs, one of
which removes the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator of the lower a/c, which
then gradually departs controlled flight and is lost. It could get even worse,
when one or more _wings_ approached the target at the same time, usually because
someone had missed turning at the proper IP, or else one of the formations had gone
around again because they hadn't bombed the first time (which made the lead
bombardier and the mission commander very unpopular with the other crews).

Depending on the size of the target and the number of wings, following wings might
have the same or a different aimpoint. Later in the war with more wings, the
latter practice was more common, as it was found that smoke and fires from the
earlier groups bombs often made it impossible for the later groups' bombardiers to
spot the original aimpoint. Indeed, the 8th Operational Research section did a
study which showed that group bombing accuracy directly correlated with where the
group was in the sequence; the earlier a group bombed the target, the more
accurately it bombed. See Stephen L. McFarland's book "America's Pursuit of
Precision Bombing, 1910-1945," for everything you're ever likely to have wanted to
know (and a lot more) about U.S. and other countries bombsight development and use,
as well as accuracies achievable, production issues, factors such as the above
which caused bombing errors, etc.

In 1944 and especially in 1945 when attacking smaller, less well-defended targets
with smaller formations, it became common to once again bomb by squadrons instead
of groups, precisely to avoid the sort of spillover wastage that larger bombing
formations caused.

As to the technique of individual bombers aiming and bombing a target in a stream,
AFAIK that was only practised by the RAF at night, from 1944 or so on (for
precision attacks, that is). This appears to have been adopted because Churchill
was worried about French civilian casualties from collateral damage if the
transportation plan was adopted. However, it was found that Bomber Command (well,
5 Group anyway, usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb marshalling
yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing individually
instead of in formation. Using large formations would have caused too much
spillover damage -- even with a 100% accurate MPI, the bomb coverage area of a big
formation was so large that numerous bombs were bound to hit outside the target
area. With individual bombers, even the occasional gross aiming error resulted in
fewer bombs hitting civilian areas. Note that this technique was only considered
possible in areas where the defenses were rather light, i.e. over France at night,
because the bombers lacked mutual support for defense. It's also true that such a
risk was considered politically necessary to avoid allied civilian causualties,
whereas by 1944 (at least), none of the allied commanders cared all that much if
collateral damage from spillover due to bombing in formation killed large numbers
of German civilians.

Guy

Dave Eadsforth

August 24th 04, 10:11 PM

In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
>> What I meant to ask about was
>>a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
>>into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
>>required for a particular target.
>
>I'm not sure I understand the formation you're talking about. At typical B-17
>formation (after early 1943) consisted of three groups (18-20 aircraft) flying
>line a breast and staggered by altitude. There were times (I believe this was
>done at Regensberg) when one of the three groups would fall in behind in order
>to narrow the bombing pattern. Is this what you're thinking of?
>
Thanks - yes, that was how I interpreted the brief description I read.
I did not glean from the description whether it was a regular manoeuvre,
and if it was, were there metrics to support its success?
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

August 24th 04, 10:16 PM

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: Dave Eadsforth
>>Date: 8/24/2004 1:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>

SNIP

>>>
>>>Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
>>>production line to an Me-109 pilot.
>>>
>>Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
>>question!
>>
>>I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
>>a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
>>into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
>>required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
>>effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
>>versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
>>Groups?
>>
>>If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
>>Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
>>attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.
>>
>>Many thanks in advance,
>>
>>Dave
>>>
>>
>
>Thanks for realizing and admiting your errors Dave. B-17's flew the missions in
>the same way B-24's. B-26's and A-26''s did. In tight formations as entire
>squadrons within groups in defensive boxes.

Thanks - I did not know that the same approach was followed by the
heavies and the mediums.

>
>>f someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
>>Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
>>attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.
>
>No options. We planned the mission and we flew the plan. We were not a bunch
>of cowboys all in business for ourselves. We were well trained and disciplined
>airmen.

Yes, I realise that! When I spoke of options at IP I was thinking about
officially planned ones.

> You have been listening to too many non combat wannabees making up crap
> When someone tells you "what it was really like up there" ask them how many
>missions they flew. If the answer is "none" disregard what they say. It will
>probably either be all or partly wrong. Flying good tight formations was
>essential to success. And holding those formations tight against the most
>vicious attacks by fighters and or flak was a matter of life and death. It's
>nice to read books about war. But no one ever sitting at home reading about war
>ever got shot down in flames..
>
I think that many people who did not experience air combat often wonder
how they would have got on. I think I would have qualified for Section
Eight at the recruitment interview...
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

August 24th 04, 10:22 PM

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
>> In article >, BUFDRVR
>> > writes
>> >Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>> >
SNIP
>>
>> If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
>> Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
>> attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.
>
>Depends on the period, but typically the wings would be 2-5miles in trail of
>each
>other. At the IP, each wing would try and get the groups in trail, by the lead
>group making a regular turn and the flanking (high and low ) groups turning
>early
>or late. However, groups would stay at their same heights for bombing, which
>made
>reassembly into the wing formation after exiting the target easier.
>
>In practice, it often was difficult or impossible for the groups to get into
>trail,
>so you might have the groups actually approaching the target on convergent
>courses,
>sometimes simultaneously. This could cause problems if one group flew under
>another at bombs away - see the fairly numerous photos of B-17s or B-24s
>destroyed
>or damaged by being bombed by a/c of a higher group. For example, there's a
>widely
>published sequence showing a B-17 under another which releases its bombs, one of
>which removes the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator of the lower a/c,
>which
>then gradually departs controlled flight and is lost.

I think I have seen it. Rather chilling...

> It could get even worse,
>when one or more _wings_ approached the target at the same time, usually because
>someone had missed turning at the proper IP, or else one of the formations had
>gone
>around again because they hadn't bombed the first time (which made the lead
>bombardier and the mission commander very unpopular with the other crews).
>
>Depending on the size of the target and the number of wings, following wings
>might
>have the same or a different aimpoint. Later in the war with more wings, the
>latter practice was more common, as it was found that smoke and fires from the
>earlier groups bombs often made it impossible for the later groups' bombardiers
>to
>spot the original aimpoint. Indeed, the 8th Operational Research section did a
>study which showed that group bombing accuracy directly correlated with where
>the
>group was in the sequence; the earlier a group bombed the target, the more
>accurately it bombed. See Stephen L. McFarland's book "America's Pursuit of
>Precision Bombing, 1910-1945," for everything you're ever likely to have wanted
>to
>know (and a lot more) about U.S. and other countries bombsight development and
>use,
>as well as accuracies achievable, production issues, factors such as the above
>which caused bombing errors, etc.

If it is on Amazon or the like, I'll find it. Thanks!
>
>In 1944 and especially in 1945 when attacking smaller, less well-defended
>targets
>with smaller formations, it became common to once again bomb by squadrons
>instead
>of groups, precisely to avoid the sort of spillover wastage that larger bombing
>formations caused.

Made sense...
>
>As to the technique of individual bombers aiming and bombing a target in a
>stream,
>AFAIK that was only practised by the RAF at night, from 1944 or so on (for
>precision attacks, that is). This appears to have been adopted because
>Churchill
>was worried about French civilian casualties from collateral damage if the
>transportation plan was adopted. However, it was found that Bomber Command
>(well,
>5 Group anyway, usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb
>marshalling
>yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing individually
>instead of in formation. Using large formations would have caused too much
>spillover damage -- even with a 100% accurate MPI, the bomb coverage area of a
>big
>formation was so large that numerous bombs were bound to hit outside the target
>area. With individual bombers, even the occasional gross aiming error resulted
>in
>fewer bombs hitting civilian areas. Note that this technique was only considered
>possible in areas where the defenses were rather light, i.e. over France at
>night,
>because the bombers lacked mutual support for defense. It's also true that such
>a
>risk was considered politically necessary to avoid allied civilian causualties,
>whereas by 1944 (at least), none of the allied commanders cared all that much if
>collateral damage from spillover due to bombing in formation killed large
>numbers
>of German civilians.
>
>Guy
>
>
That's a huge thumbnail, Guy - thanks very much for devoting the time to
writing it. Archived and backed up already...

Cheers,

Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth

Guy Alcala

August 24th 04, 10:26 PM

Guy Alcala wrote:

<snip>

That reminds me, if you can you might want to find a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid", as it describes the wing shift into bombing formation by
groups in trail and group bombing accuracy, as well as many other tactical matters
pertaining to mid-1943 era (and largely for the rest of the war) 8th Bomber Command
missions.

Guy

Jack G

August 25th 04, 12:18 AM

Another excellent reference is "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" by Roger A.
Freeman.

Jack G.

Disclaimer: Yes Art, I am a veteran with no combat experience, but I do
believe news groups exist more for the exchange of information than for
sharing "experiences".

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Guy Alcala wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> That reminds me, if you can you might want to find a copy of Martin
Middlebrook's "The
> Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid", as it describes the wing shift into bombing
formation by
> groups in trail and group bombing accuracy, as well as many other tactical
matters
> pertaining to mid-1943 era (and largely for the rest of the war) 8th
Bomber Command
> missions.
>
> Guy
>

ArtKramr

August 25th 04, 12:28 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 8/24/2004 4:18 PM Pacific Standard Time

>nother excellent reference is "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" by Roger A.
>Freeman.
>
>Jack G.
>
>Disclaimer: Yes Art, I am a veteran with no combat experience, but I do
believe news groups exist more for the exchange of information than for
>sharing "experiences".

With no experiences to share I see your point. No offense of course.

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

B2431

August 25th 04, 12:47 AM

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/24/2004 2:35 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
>>experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.
>>
>>Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
>>who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I assume
>you
>have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about. Anyone
>not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not clutter
>it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
>diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to share?
>Well, where the hell are they?
>
>.
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS

Art, that should apply just as well to the assorted political rants you
initiated.

When you put down other servicemen's service as being not as important or valid
as yours you are bragging.

As for sharing experiences I have done it many times just not about my combat
time in Viet Nam. Have you ever noticed ground combat veterans rarely talk
about we experienced? Did you ever wonder why? While you and all the other air
combat types did see war it was different kind than ours. You never experienced
watching children die horribly, you never had to walk point, your combat
missions lasted only a few hours where ours might last days anmd a whole bunch
of things I'd rather not remember.

As I said, your war was no more important to you than mine was to me. I just
choose not to talk about it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jack G

August 25th 04, 01:44 AM

Art,

There is nothing you can say about me personally that could possibly offend
me - I just consider the source. What you say about not-combat veterans in
general is offensive and is a very sad reflection you personally.

Jack G.

>
> With no experiences to share I see your point. No offense of course.
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

WaltBJ

August 25th 04, 02:38 AM

My mind boggles at the thought of a long string of B17s in single file
trail. Besides giving the flak a chance to shoot at each aircraft
individually, and the lack of mutual bomber gun support versus the
fighters, by the time the middle guys got there the target would be
obscured by smoke and dust from the bombs ahead. By late 44 most
B17/B24 bombing was executed by the lead bombardier, a man picked for
skill, and the rest of the planes in the formation dropped their bombs
when he dropped his. AMAF there was a radio system to trigger the rest
of the planes when he pressed the pickle button, but I don't know how
much it was used. FWIW I've seen bomb trails from Arc Light
(B52)strikes in the jungles of VN - three parallel lines of craters,
maybe half a mile to a mile long. The craters are not each a single
line but sort of staggered slightly from side to side as the MERs left
center and right stations kick the bombs left, down and right -
slightly. As I remember the spacing between strings is like a couple
hundred yards or so. Again, FWIW, a lot of those strings of craters
were left by F4 formations dropping off Loran birds or the RBS (MSQ)
station at NKP. That involved a lot of either close formation or night
work holding a precise heading altitude and airspeed for what seemed
like an hour meanwhile listening to the RHAW gear chirping (and now
and then rattling) away. Bombing like that was like kissing an
elderly aunt when I was a little kid.
Walt BJ

BUFDRVR

August 25th 04, 02:40 AM

ArtKramr wrote:

>The mystery is that with all we
>learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the USAF
>was still droping in trails.

<sigh> We bomb in trail (for the most part) today and do a great job. Trail
formation has many benifits, not the least of which, it provides much needed
flexability when engaged by SAMs.

Your broad generalizations continue....

BUFDRVR

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

Mike Dargan

August 25th 04, 02:55 AM

ArtKramr wrote:
> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the ground
> and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.

Cheers

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

Howard Berkowitz

August 25th 04, 03:05 AM

When was the concept of fratricide among bombs first clearly articulated?

Guy Alcala

August 25th 04, 03:24 AM

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes

<snip>

> >As to the technique of individual bombers aiming and bombing a target in a
> >stream,
> >AFAIK that was only practised by the RAF at night, from 1944 or so on (for
> >precision attacks, that is). This appears to have been adopted because
> >Churchill
> >was worried about French civilian casualties from collateral damage if the
> >transportation plan was adopted. However, it was found that Bomber Command
> >(well,
> >5 Group anyway, usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb
> >marshalling
> >yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing individually
> >instead of in formation. Using large formations would have caused too much
> >spillover damage -- even with a 100% accurate MPI, the bomb coverage area of a
> >big
> >formation was so large that numerous bombs were bound to hit outside the target
> >area. With individual bombers, even the occasional gross aiming error resulted
> >in
> >fewer bombs hitting civilian areas. Note that this technique was only considered
> >possible in areas where the defenses were rather light, i.e. over France at
> >night,
> >because the bombers lacked mutual support for defense. It's also true that such
> >a
> >risk was considered politically necessary to avoid allied civilian causualties,
> >whereas by 1944 (at least), none of the allied commanders cared all that much if
> >collateral damage from spillover due to bombing in formation killed large
> >numbers
> >of German civilians.

> That's a huge thumbnail, Guy - thanks very much for devoting the time to
> writing it. Archived and backed up already...

You're welcome. Oh, I forgot to mention the single most important factors that made
these Bomber Command missions possible - the targets had to be in Oboe range for
accurate marking, and the bombers had to be able to bomb visually on ground markers.
With an properly marked target and adequate visibility, accuracy could be quite
high. Of course, ocasionally the Luftwaffe would put up a decent defense in France
-- prior to the mission to Mailly-Le-Camp, tactical targets in France only counted
for partial mission credit (I think it was 1/3rd), like minelaying missions which
didn't go east of a certain longitude. The bombers suffered heavy casualties on that
raid owing to delayed marking,

http://www.raf.mod.uk/dday/timeline_may.html

See May 3-4, and that was the end of only part mission credit for French targets.
Oh, for an example of an RAF heavy bomber bombing "formation", see the first photo on
the same page. I'd like to know what the target was; with that kind of spread and
that amount of undercast it pretty much had to be a German city, with the drop made
by radar.

Guy

Dave Eadsforth

August 25th 04, 06:42 AM

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Guy Alcala wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>That reminds me, if you can you might want to find a copy of Martin
>Middlebrook's "The
>Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid", as it describes the wing shift into bombing
>formation by
>groups in trail and group bombing accuracy, as well as many other tactical
>matters
>pertaining to mid-1943 era (and largely for the rest of the war) 8th Bomber
>Command
>missions.
>
>Guy
>
Thanks once again...

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

August 25th 04, 06:53 AM

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
>> In article >, Guy Alcala
>> > writes
>
SNIP
>
>> That's a huge thumbnail, Guy - thanks very much for devoting the time to
>> writing it. Archived and backed up already...
>
>You're welcome. Oh, I forgot to mention the single most important factors that
>made
>these Bomber Command missions possible - the targets had to be in Oboe range for
>accurate marking, and the bombers had to be able to bomb visually on ground
>markers.
>With an properly marked target and adequate visibility, accuracy could be quite
>high. Of course, ocasionally the Luftwaffe would put up a decent defense in
>France
>-- prior to the mission to Mailly-Le-Camp, tactical targets in France only
>counted
>for partial mission credit (I think it was 1/3rd), like minelaying missions
>which
>didn't go east of a certain longitude.

That must have gone down well with the crews - like a bomb, in fact...

> The bombers suffered heavy casualties on
>that
>raid owing to delayed marking,
>
>http://www.raf.mod.uk/dday/timeline_may.html

Just checked it out - very interesting page.
>
>See May 3-4, and that was the end of only part mission credit for French
>targets.
>Oh, for an example of an RAF heavy bomber bombing "formation", see the first
>photo on
>the same page. I'd like to know what the target was; with that kind of spread
>and
>that amount of undercast it pretty much had to be a German city, with the drop
>made
>by radar.

Hmm - probably an archive picture of a drop over a range in the Scottish
highlands - only sheep around to criticise the accuracy...
>
>Guy
>
>

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

August 25th 04, 06:54 AM

In article <q1QWc.1359$OP2.420@trnddc01>, Jack G <remove.jack.grouell@ve
rizon.net> writes
>Another excellent reference is "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" by Roger A.
>Freeman.
>
>Jack G.
>

Thanks!

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Guy Alcala

August 25th 04, 07:38 AM

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes
> >Dave Eadsforth wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Guy Alcala
> >> > writes
> >
> SNIP
> >
> >> That's a huge thumbnail, Guy - thanks very much for devoting the time to
> >> writing it. Archived and backed up already...
> >
> >You're welcome. Oh, I forgot to mention the single most important factors that
> >made
> >these Bomber Command missions possible - the targets had to be in Oboe range for
> >accurate marking, and the bombers had to be able to bomb visually on ground
> >markers.
> >With an properly marked target and adequate visibility, accuracy could be quite
> >high. Of course, ocasionally the Luftwaffe would put up a decent defense in
> >France
> >-- prior to the mission to Mailly-Le-Camp, tactical targets in France only
> >counted
> >for partial mission credit (I think it was 1/3rd), like minelaying missions
> >which
> >didn't go east of a certain longitude.
>
> That must have gone down well with the crews - like a bomb, in fact...

As far as the "gardening" (mining) missions went, it fairly accurately reflected the
relative risks, and the same was generally true for shallow French targets, once the
Reich's defenses had been strengthened. I think the dividing line between part and
full credit for mining missions was either 4 or 6 deg. E. longitude -- pretty much
were you just nipping over to the French/Belgian/Dutch coasts, or were you dropping
in German waters (including the Baltic). ISTR either Middlebrook's "The Nuremburg
Raid" or Max Hastings' "Bomber Command" has the details; probably the former. Many
of the crews were apparently happy to get mining missions as they were considered
milk runs, although IIRR by late 1943 or early 1944 they tended to be given to a/c
which were no longer considered capable of first-line service; first the Wellington
squadrons and then the Stirling units. Early model Halifax units may also have drawn
these assignments from 1944 on. It does show that the nominal heavy bomber main
force crew's first combat tour of 30 missions might well involve considerably more
than that.

Guy

Mike

August 25th 04, 08:18 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
> >experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.
> >
> >Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing
those
> >who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
>
> I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I
assume you
> have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about.
Anyone
> not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not
clutter
> it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
> diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to share?
> Well, where the hell are they?
>
> .
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Art defines NGs for us - apparently they're ALL about sharing experiences.

So the medieval and ancient history groups can all wind up now.

It's *partly* about sharing experiences. It's also partly about sharing
knowledge gained through reading and discussion. It's about sharing
well-thought out opinions.

Dave

August 25th 04, 01:49 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> > >From: (B2431)
> > >Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >
> > >Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
> > >experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.
> > >
> > >Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing
> those
> > >who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.
> > >
> > >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> > >
> >
> > I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I
> assume you
> > have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about.
> Anyone
> > not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not
> clutter
> > it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
> > diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to
share?
> > Well, where the hell are they?
> >
> > .
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
> Art defines NGs for us - apparently they're ALL about sharing experiences.
>
> So the medieval and ancient history groups can all wind up now.
>
> It's *partly* about sharing experiences. It's also partly about sharing
> knowledge gained through reading and discussion. It's about sharing
> well-thought out opinions.
>
>
Well said!

Robert Briggs

August 25th 04, 07:24 PM

Mike Dargan wrote:
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>
> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.

Nicely put, Mike.

Robert Briggs

August 25th 04, 07:32 PM

Guy Alcala wrote:

> However, it was found that Bomber Command (well, 5 Group anyway,
> usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb marshalling
> yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing
> individually instead of in formation.

Of course, an extreme case of the need for individual accuracy was
the operation for which 617 was formed.

ArtKramr

August 25th 04, 07:36 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Robert Briggs
>Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Mike Dargan wrote:
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
>> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>>
>> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.
>
>Nicely put, Mike.
>

Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?

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

August 25th 04, 10:01 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Robert Briggs
> >Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Mike Dargan wrote:
> >> ArtKramr wrote:
> >>
> >> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
> >> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
> >>
> >> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.
> >
> >Nicely put, Mike.
> >
>
>
> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience
with
> formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
> did you fly? Could you give us details?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what happened.

ArtKramr

August 25th 04, 10:19 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Mike"
>Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> >From: Robert Briggs
>> >Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Mike Dargan wrote:
>> >> ArtKramr wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
>> >> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>> >>
>> >> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.
>> >
>> >Nicely put, Mike.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience
>with
>> formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
>missions
>> did you fly? Could you give us details?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Art, have you never heard of research?
>
>Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what happened.

And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the Ruhr
valley.

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

Jack G

August 25th 04, 10:47 PM

And, it shows in your posts that you have not researched a military aviation
subject any closer since then.

Jack G.

>
> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
Ruhr
> valley.
>
>
> 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

August 25th 04, 11:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 8/25/2004 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2O7Xc.693$Cc.161@trnddc07>
>
>And, it shows in your posts that you have not researched a military aviation
>subject any closer since then.
>
>Jack G.
>
>
>>
>> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
>Ruhr
>> valley.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>

And it shows in your posts that you live in a wannabee dream world of fantasy.

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

OXMORON1

August 25th 04, 11:34 PM

Art wrote:
And it shows in your posts that you live in a wannabee dream world of fantasy.

Art a couple of days ago I asked you:
Can you tell me the difference between "horse apples", "rabbit pellets", and
"cow patties"?

You never answered the question. Do you know the answer?

Rick Clark

buf3

August 25th 04, 11:36 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: (buf3)
> >Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
> ground
> >> and the more damage you do to the enemy.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
> >When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
> >RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
> >by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
> >(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
> >trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
> >with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
> >digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
> >system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
> >echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
> >separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
> >dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
> >dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
> >(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
> >heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
> >time we usually flew in three ship formations.
> >
> >Gene Myers
> >
>
>
> Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too few in
> this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
> offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with all we
> learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the USAF
> was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
> formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns on
> the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape of
> the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or planes
> that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape of
> the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike photos?
> Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very interested.
> Thanks again for a good post.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.

Gene Myers

ArtKramr

August 25th 04, 11:40 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (buf3)
>Date: 8/25/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> >From: (buf3)
>> >Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
>> ground
>> >> and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>> >
>> >When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
>> >RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
>> >by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
>> >(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
>> >trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
>> >with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
>> >digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
>> >system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
>> >echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
>> >separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
>> >dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
>> >dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
>> >(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
>> >heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
>> >time we usually flew in three ship formations.
>> >
>> >Gene Myers
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too few
>in
>> this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
>> offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with all
>we
>> learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the
>USAF
>> was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
>> formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns
>on
>> the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape
>of
>> the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or
>planes
>> that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape
>of
>> the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike
>photos?
>> Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very
>interested.
>> Thanks again for a good post.
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
>can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.
>
>Gene Myers
>

Thank you Gene. I'll view them wiith interest.

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

August 26th 04, 12:02 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/25/2004 3:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: (buf3)
>>Date: 8/25/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>> >From: (buf3)
>>> >Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>> >> The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
>>> ground
>>> >> and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Arthur Kramer
>>> >> 344th BG 494th BS
>>> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>> >> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>> >
>>> >When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
>>> >RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
>>> >by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
>>> >(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
>>> >trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
>>> >with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
>>> >digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
>>> >system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
>>> >echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
>>> >separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
>>> >dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
>>> >dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
>>> >(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
>>> >heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
>>> >time we usually flew in three ship formations.
>>> >
>>> >Gene Myers
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too
>few
>>in
>>> this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
>>> offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with
>all
>>we
>>> learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the
>>USAF
>>> was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
>>> formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns
>>on
>>> the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape
>>of
>>> the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or
>>planes
>>> that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape
>>of
>>> the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike
>>photos?
>>> Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very
>>interested.
>>> Thanks again for a good post.
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>>> 344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
>>can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.
>>
>>Gene Myers
>>
>
>
>Thank you Gene. I'll view them wiith interest.
>
>
>
>
Got 'em !

These are not very good, but all I could find after a short look.

Gene Myers

Thanks Gene. They are every interesting but not too clear. What I found
especially interesting are the huge gaps in the patterns. These look like bomb
patterns that surround the target more than clobber it. I would guess that it
is the result on an intermittant intervelometer.But it is hard to see very
clearly so I could be missing something. We need 10x10's and a stero glass.
(grin) Thanks again for letting me see them. You might want to look at the bomb
patterns on my website to see my frame of reference. Especially Wurzburg,
Verberie and Brest.

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

Howard Berkowitz

August 26th 04, 12:05 AM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: "Mike"
> >Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >> >From: Robert Briggs
> >> >Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >Mike Dargan wrote:
> >> >> ArtKramr wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
> >> >> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
> >> >> better.
> >> >
> >> >Nicely put, Mike.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
> >> experience
> >with
> >> formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
> >missions
> >> did you fly? Could you give us details?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Art, have you never heard of research?
> >
> >Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
> >happened.
>
>
> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
> Ruhr
> valley.
>

I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.

But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
straining their eyes over photographs.

Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
delay fuzing?

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 01:02 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 8/25/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> >From: "Mike"
>> >Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> >> >From: Robert Briggs
>> >> >Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >Mike Dargan wrote:
>> >> >> ArtKramr wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
>> >> >> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
>> >> >> better.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nicely put, Mike.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
>> >> experience
>> >with
>> >> formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
>> >missions
>> >> did you fly? Could you give us details?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Art, have you never heard of research?
>> >
>> >Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
>> >happened.
>>
>>
>> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
>> Ruhr
>> valley.
>>
>
>I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
>personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.
>
>But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
>aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
>no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
>unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
>analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
>straining their eyes over photographs.
>
>Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
>thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
>delay fuzing?
>

Let me set you straight so you don't have to go on assumptions. Every mission
resulted in photogrametric strike photos that we studied carefully after the
mission. We saw what happened from the air on the ground then we saw the strike
photos. You can actually see those photos on my website taken on the missions I
flew. But afterward recon planes (P-38's) took shots after the smoke cleared
(see "death of a marshalling yard") so we could see the damage on the ground. I
think that will give you a good idea of how we went about our attacks..

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

Howard Berkowitz

August 26th 04, 02:28 AM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 8/25/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >> >From: "Mike"
> >> >Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >> >> >From: Robert Briggs
> >> >> >Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mike Dargan wrote:
> >> >> >> ArtKramr wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern
> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> > the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
> >> >> >> better.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nicely put, Mike.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
> >> >> experience
> >> >with
> >> >> formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
> >> >missions
> >> >> did you fly? Could you give us details?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Art, have you never heard of research?
> >> >
> >> >Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
> >> >happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over
> >> the
> >> Ruhr
> >> valley.
> >>
> >
> >I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
> >personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.
> >
> >But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
> >aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
> >no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
> >unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
> >analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
> >straining their eyes over photographs.
> >
> >Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
> >thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
> >delay fuzing?
> >
>
>
> Let me set you straight so you don't have to go on assumptions. Every
> mission
> resulted in photogrametric strike photos that we studied carefully after
> the
> mission. We saw what happened from the air on the ground then we saw the
> strike
> photos. You can actually see those photos on my website taken on the
> missions I
> flew. But afterward recon planes (P-38's) took shots after the smoke
> cleared
> (see "death of a marshalling yard") so we could see the damage on the
> ground. I
> think that will give you a good idea of how we went about our attacks..
>

I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
spear also has a staff.

How do you measure Constance Babington-Smith's contribution?

Jack G

August 26th 04, 02:42 AM

Art

Those photos probably would have been taken by F-5's.

Jack G.

But afterward recon planes (P-38's) took shots after the smoke cleared
> (see "death of a marshalling yard") so we could see the damage on the
ground. I
> think that will give you a good idea of how we went about our attacks..
>
>
> 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

August 26th 04, 02:44 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time

>I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
>target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
>organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
>vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
>analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
>spear also has a staff.
>

How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid? In the
end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We did the
hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or were
buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable sheltered
lives and total
safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.

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

Pete

August 26th 04, 03:21 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid? In
the
> end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We did
the
> hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
> And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or
were
> buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable
sheltered
> lives and total
> safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell
over
> Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.

"Screw 'em all."

There we have it, folks. The definitive statement from FO Art Kramer about
anyone who is non-aircrew. Excuse me...non combat aircrew.

Pete

BUFDRVR

August 26th 04, 04:12 AM

ArtKramr wrote:

>While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
>Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.

You moron, without the Martini sipping targeteers your weapons would have
little if any effect. I realize your knowledge of WWII is severely limited
beyond your own crew, but do you think Germany was defeated simply because you
dropped bombs? No, it was the effect created by your bombs. No targeteers, no
effects. Kind of like the weapons load crews you equally despised. No weapons
loaded, no bombs dropped.

BUFDRVR

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

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 04:20 AM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 8/25/2004 8:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
>>Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
>
>You moron, without the Martini sipping targeteers your weapons would have
>little if any effect. I realize your knowledge of WWII is severely limited
>beyond your own crew, but do you think Germany was defeated simply because
>you
>dropped bombs? No, it was the effect created by your bombs. No targeteers, no
>effects. Kind of like the weapons load crews you equally despised. No weapons
>loaded, no bombs dropped.
>
>

What the hell do you know about it? You are the ****ing moron.. Asshole.

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

Bob Coe

August 26th 04, 04:23 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
> >Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
>
> You moron, without the Martini sipping targeteers your weapons would have
> little if any effect. I realize your knowledge of WWII is severely limited
> beyond your own crew, but do you think Germany was defeated simply because you
> dropped bombs? No, it was the effect created by your bombs. No targeteers, no
> effects. Kind of like the weapons load crews you equally despised. No weapons
> loaded, no bombs dropped.

By calling him a moron, you do a disservice to all morons. Kramer isn't a moron,
he doesn't have that much brain left. A moron can be educated; Kramer can't.

Howard Berkowitz

August 26th 04, 04:32 AM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
> >target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
> >organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
> >vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
> >analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
> >spear also has a staff.
> >
>
> How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid? In
> the
> end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We
> did the
> hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
> And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or
> were
> buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable
> sheltered
> lives and total
> safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell
> over
> Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
>
>

I haven't the slightest doubt that more of you came back alive because
of the work of the operations research groups, the cover and deception
organizations, and the target analysts.

Bob Coe

August 26th 04, 04:33 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> What the hell do you know about it? You are the ****ing moron.. Asshole.

How do you know they were sipping martini's if you were supposedly
over Germany??

Howard Berkowitz

August 26th 04, 04:37 AM

In article <DIcXc.14362$ni.2337@okepread01>, "Bob Coe" >
wrote:

> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> > ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> > >While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
> > >Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
> >
> > You moron, without the Martini sipping targeteers your weapons would
> > have
> > little if any effect. I realize your knowledge of WWII is severely
> > limited
> > beyond your own crew, but do you think Germany was defeated simply
> > because you
> > dropped bombs? No, it was the effect created by your bombs. No
> > targeteers, no
> > effects. Kind of like the weapons load crews you equally despised. No
> > weapons
> > loaded, no bombs dropped.
>
> By calling him a moron, you do a disservice to all morons. Kramer isn't
> a moron,
> he doesn't have that much brain left. A moron can be educated; Kramer
> can't.
>
>

I have some mental pictures involved, of an ammunition ship, carrying
bombs to the ETO from an American factory, catching a torpedo.

Bob Coe

August 26th 04, 04:42 AM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote
>
> I have some mental pictures involved, of an ammunition ship, carrying
> bombs to the ETO from an American factory, catching a torpedo.

Yea, but what about the ones that made it?

Howard Berkowitz

August 26th 04, 05:36 AM

In article <b%cXc.14367$ni.12227@okepread01>, "Bob Coe"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote
> >
> > I have some mental pictures involved, of an ammunition ship, carrying
> > bombs to the ETO from an American factory, catching a torpedo.
>
> Yea, but what about the ones that made it?
>
>

Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
plane.

Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name is
unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy end,
Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at the
ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.

Mike

August 26th 04, 07:23 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
> >target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
> >organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
> >vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
> >analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
> >spear also has a staff.
> >
>
> How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid? In
the
> end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We did
the
> hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
> And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or
were
> buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable
sheltered
> lives and total
> safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell
over
> Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

None of what has been posted makes your personal observations any less
valid. However, you were just one small cog in a huge machine. Your
evidence is one piece of the jigsaw puzzle but it's not the only piece and
it's certainly not the most important piece.

I respect the opinion of someone who has studied the subject in depth over
many years every bit as much, if not more, than that of someone who took
part at a very low level. I wouldn't admire him as a warrior but he
probably has more to offer than the average warrior. There's only so many
times I can read 'and then we were hit by 30 Fockewulfs and went down in
flames...'.

Robert Briggs

August 26th 04, 06:03 PM

ArtKramr wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Mike Dargan wrote:

> > > If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.
> >
> > Nicely put, Mike.
>
> Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience
> with formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
> missions did you fly? Could you give us details?

See Message-ID: >

Robert Briggs

August 26th 04, 06:22 PM

ArtKramr wrote:
> Mike wrote:

> > Art, have you never heard of research?
> >
> > Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what happened.
>
> And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
> Ruhr valley.

Let's see, now. I've read a book by a man who did his research at
sixty (60) feet over the Ruhr valley and wrote about it within a
year or so.

Do I believe him? Or some old codger on Usenet whose view of things
was more than two orders of magnitude worse and who is writing about
it six decades later?

Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the Royal
Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...

Robert Briggs

August 26th 04, 06:28 PM

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
> plane.
>
> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.

And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
from Willie's wings ...

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 07:00 PM

>Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
>ground.
>From: Robert Briggs
>Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
>> plane.
>>
>> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
>> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
>> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
>> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
>> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
>
>And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
>example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
>from Willie's wings ...

I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from Willies
wings.
But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them. We
couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of brothers.
Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB meant
those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
And that means you.

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

August 26th 04, 07:03 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Robert Briggs Trebor.Briggs@BITphysic

>Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the Royal
>Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...

Probably???? could you please be a bit more vague in your totally vague
message.

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

Robert Briggs

August 26th 04, 07:30 PM

ArtKramr wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the
> > Royal Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...
>
> Probably???? could you please be a bit more vague in your totally
> vague message.

If anyone in the RAF knew more about the topic than the late AVM
Don Bennett there's a fair chance he worked rather closely with
Bennett.

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 07:47 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Robert Briggs
>Date: 8/26/2004 11:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>> Robert Briggs wrote:
>>
>> > Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the
>> > Royal Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...
>>
>> Probably???? could you please be a bit more vague in your totally
>> vague message.
>
>If anyone in the RAF knew more about the topic than the late AVM
>Don Bennett there's a fair chance he worked rather closely with
>Bennett.
>

"A fair chance".? You are a master of uncertainty

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

Kevin Brooks

August 26th 04, 08:28 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
> >ground.
> >From: Robert Briggs
> >Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> >> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
> >> plane.
> >>
> >> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
> >> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
> >> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
> >> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
> >> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
> >
> >And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
> >example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
> >from Willie's wings ...
>
>
> I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
Willies
> wings.
> But we went to war. They didn'lt.

Really? Odd in that they seem to have been serving at the same airfields you
were based at, overseas in a time of war--if that is not "going to war",
then one wonders just what kind of strange criteria you apply to that
phrase.

They were all great, everyone of them. We
> couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of
brothers.
> Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB
meant
> those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
> And that means you.

Those maintainers who died in the various theaters of operation during the
conflict, sometimes indeed as casualties due to enemy action, seem to point
once again to the fallacy of your odd sense of perception.

Brooks

>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Mike

August 26th 04, 08:32 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
> >ground.
> >From: Robert Briggs
> >Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> >> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
> >> plane.
> >>
> >> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
> >> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
> >> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
> >> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
> >> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
> >
> >And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
> >example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
> >from Willie's wings ...
>
>
> I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
Willies
> wings.
> But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them.
We
> couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of
brothers.
> Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB
meant
> those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
> And that means you.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

A quick question. I assume you volunteered for the air force - you weren't
drafted, were you?

M. J. Powell

August 26th 04, 09:01 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
>>ground.
>>From: Robert Briggs
>>Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
>>> plane.
>>>
>>> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
>>> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
>>> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
>>> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
>>> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
>>
>>And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
>>example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
>>from Willie's wings ...
>
>
>I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from Willies
>wings.
>But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them. We
>couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of brothers.
>Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB meant
>those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
>And that means you.

There were quite a number of RAF erks, particularly at Manston, who
would disagree with you.

But they can't. They died around the aircraft they were servicing.

Did Stansted get raided much?

Mike

Mike

August 26th 04, 09:04 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: Robert Briggs
>>Date: 8/26/2004 11:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>> Robert Briggs wrote:
>>>
>>> > Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the
>>> > Royal Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...
>>>
>>> Probably???? could you please be a bit more vague in your totally
>>> vague message.
>>
>>If anyone in the RAF knew more about the topic than the late AVM
>>Don Bennett there's a fair chance he worked rather closely with
>>Bennett.
>>
>
>
> "A fair chance".? You are a master of uncertainty
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Art, you are being as dense as your supposed bombing pattern.

Dave Holford

August 26th 04, 09:13 PM

Mike wrote:
>

> >
> > I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
> Willies
> > wings.
> > But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them.
> We
> > couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of
> brothers.
> > Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB
> meant
> > those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
> > And that means you.
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
>
> A quick question. I assume you volunteered for the air force - you weren't
> drafted, were you?

He vounteered so that he wouldn't get drafted and have to fight.

Dave

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 09:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Mike"
>Date: 8/26/2004 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>>From: Robert Briggs
>>>Date: 8/26/2004 11:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>> Robert Briggs wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Then, of course, there is a book by a man who was probably the
>>>> > Royal Air Force's top man in weapon delivery ...
>>>>
>>>> Probably???? could you please be a bit more vague in your totally
>>>> vague message.
>>>
>>>If anyone in the RAF knew more about the topic than the late AVM
>>>Don Bennett there's a fair chance he worked rather closely with
>>>Bennett.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "A fair chance".? You are a master of uncertainty
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>Art, you are being as dense as your supposed bombing pattern.

Thank you. Sorry for mentioning bombing patterns. From now on I'll try to use
examples that you are more likley to be familiar with.

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

Kevin Brooks

August 26th 04, 09:35 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on
the
> > >ground.
> > >From: Robert Briggs
> > >Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > >
> > >> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
> > >> plane.
> > >>
> > >> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
> > >> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
> > >> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
> > >> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
> > >> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
> > >
> > >And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
> > >example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
> > >from Willie's wings ...
> >
> >
> > I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
> Willies
> > wings.
> > But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them.
> We
> > couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of
> brothers.
> > Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB
> meant
> > those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
> > And that means you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer

>
> A quick question. I assume you volunteered for the air force - you
weren't
> drafted, were you?

Actually, he told us a while back he volunteered just ahead of his draft
notice--that was at the same time he told us the Guard was sitting at home
in their armories while he was off to win the war for us (patently false,
since the entire Guard had been federalized some two or three years
earlier).

Brooks
>
>

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 09:37 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "Mike"
>Date: 8/26/2004 12:32 PM P

>A quick question. I assume you volunteered for the air force - you weren't
>drafted, were you?

Nobody is drafted into air cadet program Nobody. Aircrews are a 100% volunteer
units based on intensive testing and very high qualification standards.. I was
17 and in high school when I volunteered for the Air Cadets, I took the air
cadet tests. (90% washout rate) I passed both the written and the physical
tests and was called to action the first day I legally could be which was on my
18th birthday. Next thing I knew I was over Germany flying missions for which
draftees were not quite up to.

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

August 26th 04, 09:39 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 8/26/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: the moron, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
>>>ground.
>>>From: Robert Briggs
>>>Date: 8/26/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those survivors accounted for the bombs that were loaded aboard Art's
>>>> plane.
>>>>
>>>> Again, I'll ask about the overall wartime contribution of someone
>>>> clearly not on the pointy end, Constance Babington-Smith. If her name
>>>> is unfamiliar, that should be corrected. Or on the very very pointy
>>>> end, Noor Inayat Khan or Virgina Hall or Sydney Cotton. Or back at
>>>> the ranch, Kelly Johnsom and Barnes Wallis.
>>>
>>>And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
>>>example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
>>>from Willie's wings ...
>>
>>
>>I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
>Willies
>>wings.
>>But we went to war. They didn'lt. They were all great, everyone of them. We
>>couldn't have done without them. But they were not of the band of brothers.
>>Band of Brothers in the original Henry V context as well as the 101st AB
>meant
>>those who fought the enemy. No one else is included.
>>And that means you.
>
>There were quite a number of RAF erks, particularly at Manston, who
>would disagree with you.
>
>But they can't. They died around the aircraft they were servicing.
>
>Did Stansted get raided much?
>
>Mike
>

Yup. But we were too tough for them.

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

BUFDRVR

August 26th 04, 09:53 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

>What the hell do you know about it?

Unlike you I'm aware of how to conduct Air Combat.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

August 26th 04, 09:54 PM

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

>I have some mental pictures involved, of an ammunition ship, carrying
>bombs to the ETO from an American factory, catching a torpedo.

According to Kramer screw those guys too. Hell, they were Merchant Mariners,
they weren't even in the military.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

August 26th 04, 09:56 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

>They were all great, everyone of them. We
>couldn't have done without them.

WOW! Progress! Are you sure you're really Art Kramer?

BUFDRVR

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

OXMORON1

August 26th 04, 10:19 PM

Art wrote:
>Nobody is drafted into air cadet program Nobody. Aircrews are a 100%
>volunteer
>units based on intensive testing and very high qualification standards.. I
>was
>17 and in high school when I volunteered for the Air Cadets, I took the air
>cadet tests. (90% washout rate) I passed both the written and the physical
>tests and was called to action the first day I legally could be which was on
>my
>18th birthday. Next thing I knew I was over Germany flying missions for which
>draftees were not quite up to.
>
Nothing special about that Art. Flying jobs are still volunteer. Since there is
no draft any more, all the military jobs are volunteer in the USA.
What you are telling us is that you were reasonably intelligent, in good
physical shape and tested well, good for you. These are still the requirements
for an aircrew position.
The major difference from you era to the current is that to be a pilot,
navigator, nav-bomb or certain systems operators you have to be a commissioned
officer, therefore you must have a college degree. A prominent exception is the
chopper pilots in the US Army, who can still be Warrant Officers. I don't know
about the Navy or Marines for sure any more, but I suspect they require
commissioned officers for the same positions at this time.
Since there are fewer positions available in the current military there is a
lot of competition for the slots.

Rick

ArtKramr

August 26th 04, 11:27 PM

>ubject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 8/26/2004 2:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote:
>>Nobody is drafted into air cadet program Nobody. Aircrews are a 100%
>>volunteer
>>units based on intensive testing and very high qualification standards.. I
>>was
>>17 and in high school when I volunteered for the Air Cadets, I took the air
>>cadet tests. (90% washout rate) I passed both the written and the physical
>>tests and was called to action the first day I legally could be which was on
>>my
>>18th birthday. Next thing I knew I was over Germany flying missions for
>which
>>draftees were not quite up to.
>>
>Nothing special about that Art. Flying jobs are still volunteer. Since there
>is
>no draft any more, all the military jobs are volunteer in the USA.
>What you are telling us is that you were reasonably intelligent, in good
>physical shape and tested well, good for you. These are still the
>requirements
>for an aircrew position.
>The major difference from you era to the current is that to be a pilot,
>navigator, nav-bomb or certain systems operators you have to be a
>commissioned
>officer, therefore you must have a college degree. A prominent exception is
>the
>chopper pilots in the US Army, who can still be Warrant Officers. I don't
>know
>about the Navy or Marines for sure any more, but I suspect they require
>commissioned officers for the same positions at this time.
>Since there are fewer positions available in the current military there is a
>lot of competition for the slots.
>
>Rick

Many are called. Few are chosen. And those who are chosen take special pride in
having been chosen.

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

Bob Coe

August 27th 04, 03:01 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >They were all great, everyone of them. We
> >couldn't have done without them.
>
> WOW! Progress! Are you sure you're really Art Kramer?

WOW! Mark your calendars! Kramer admits his crew didn't
win the war single handed, while everyone else was sipping martini's...

Bob Coe

August 27th 04, 03:09 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Many are called. Few are chosen. And those who are chosen take special pride in
> having been chosen.

Green Beret:
Silver Wings upon their chest
These are men, America's best
One hundred men will test today
But only three win the Green Beret.

Bomber crews:
Silver Wings upon their chest
These are men, America's best
One hundred men will test today
But only three won't make the grade.

ArtKramr

August 27th 04, 04:28 AM

>ubject: bomber crews, was Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the
>ground.
>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 8/26/2004 7:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8JwXc.14690$ni.1410@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Many are called. Few are chosen. And those who are chosen take special
>pride in
>> having been chosen.
>
>Green Beret:
>Silver Wings upon their chest
>These are men, America's best
>One hundred men will test today
>But only three win the Green Beret.
>
>Bomber crews:
>Silver Wings upon their chest
>These are men, America's best
>One hundred men will test today
>But only three won't make the grade.

Did you make the grade?

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

Bob Coe

August 27th 04, 04:43 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> >Bomber crews:
> >Silver Wings upon their chest
> >These are men, America's best
> >One hundred men will test today
> >But only three won't make the grade.
>
> Did you make the grade?

Nope. I got passed down to a fricking OV-10 outfit, and
won my wings where no one flunked, or could flunk...

"pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger."
-- OV-10 check-ride.

Kevin Brooks

August 27th 04, 05:12 AM

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:T5yXc.14704$ni.12581@okepread01...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> > >
> > >Bomber crews:
> > >Silver Wings upon their chest
> > >These are men, America's best
> > >One hundred men will test today
> > >But only three won't make the grade.
> >
> > Did you make the grade?
>
> Nope. I got passed down to a fricking OV-10 outfit, and
> won my wings where no one flunked, or could flunk...
>
> "pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger."
> -- OV-10 check-ride.

Unfortunately, you'd have to be a bit more explanatory when presenting that
to Art--he probably thinks an OV-10 is some kind of overhead cam ten
cylinder engine.

My brother had nice thoughts of OV-10's; spent a night on a hilltop during
Lam Son 719 (IIRC) after his dustoff UH-1 had been shot down and they had to
wait till morning to get evaced out. He said that there was always an OV-10
circling about their crash site throughout the night, ready to help out if
the bad guys got too close, something he was pretty appreciative of. Did you
do a SEA tour?

Brooks

>
>

Jack

August 27th 04, 06:29 AM

Bob Coe wrote:

> I got passed down to a fricking OV-10 outfit, and
> won my wings where no one flunked, or could flunk...
>
> "pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger."
> -- OV-10 check-ride.

What kind of wings were those you won? Did they have a rampant typewriter on a field of
coffee cups?

Jack

Bob Coe

August 27th 04, 08:08 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Bob Coe" > wrote
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote
> > > >
> > > >Bomber crews:
> > > >Silver Wings upon their chest
> > > >These are men, America's best
> > > >One hundred men will test today
> > > >But only three won't make the grade.
> > >
> > > Did you make the grade?
> >
> > Nope. I got passed down to a fricking OV-10 outfit, and
> > won my wings where no one flunked, or could flunk...
> >
> > "pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger."
> > -- OV-10 check-ride.
>
> Unfortunately, you'd have to be a bit more explanatory when presenting that
> to Art--he probably thinks an OV-10 is some kind of overhead cam ten
> cylinder engine.
>
> My brother had nice thoughts of OV-10's; spent a night on a hilltop during
> Lam Son 719 (IIRC) after his dustoff UH-1 had been shot down and they had to
> wait till morning to get evaced out. He said that there was always an OV-10
> circling about their crash site throughout the night, ready to help out if
> the bad guys got too close, something he was pretty appreciative of. Did you
> do a SEA tour?

Those guys were the ones that trained me, thankfully!

No. Before my time, I started flying in 73. Spent all of my time in Central, and
South America. Flew mostly Hurlburt Field taskings, did a tour at Sembach 76
to 79. Got stuck at TAC and CENTAF for my last five years working with the
shiny boot and scarf airline candidates.

"Two screws! Always better than a couple of blow jobs" -- Bronco Bob

Kevin Brooks

August 27th 04, 04:40 PM

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:w6BXc.14714$ni.12902@okepread01...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "Bob Coe" > wrote
> > > "ArtKramr" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >Bomber crews:
> > > > >Silver Wings upon their chest
> > > > >These are men, America's best
> > > > >One hundred men will test today
> > > > >But only three won't make the grade.
> > > >
> > > > Did you make the grade?
> > >
> > > Nope. I got passed down to a fricking OV-10 outfit, and
> > > won my wings where no one flunked, or could flunk...
> > >
> > > "pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger."
> > > -- OV-10 check-ride.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you'd have to be a bit more explanatory when presenting
that
> > to Art--he probably thinks an OV-10 is some kind of overhead cam ten
> > cylinder engine.
> >
> > My brother had nice thoughts of OV-10's; spent a night on a hilltop
during
> > Lam Son 719 (IIRC) after his dustoff UH-1 had been shot down and they
had to
> > wait till morning to get evaced out. He said that there was always an
OV-10
> > circling about their crash site throughout the night, ready to help out
if
> > the bad guys got too close, something he was pretty appreciative of. Did
you
> > do a SEA tour?
>
> Those guys were the ones that trained me, thankfully!
>
> No. Before my time, I started flying in 73. Spent all of my time in
Central, and
> South America. Flew mostly Hurlburt Field taskings, did a tour at Sembach
76
> to 79. Got stuck at TAC and CENTAF for my last five years working with
the
> shiny boot and scarf airline candidates.

Ever do Palmerola (now referred to as Soto Cano, IIRC)? Flew in and out of
there a few times via C-141 when we did a road construction project over in
Yorro Province of Honduras. When I was there (late 87 and early 88), the
Army MI folks were using it to operate RC-12's doing their usual hush-hush
stuff.

I don't recall ever seeing a USAF OV-10 in operation (which IIRC ended in
the early eighties), but I do remember seeing USMC variants flying out of
Biggs AAF at Fort Bliss, TX while I was TDY down there in early 87 (I think
they were participating in the JTF 6 counterdrug effort); interesting
aircraft. The last one I saw was serving with the USFS up in Alaska, doing
fire-fighting control work and I think also working with the smoke jumpers
out of Fairbanks.

Brooks

>
> "Two screws! Always better than a couple of blow jobs" -- Bronco Bob
>
>

Ed Rasimus

August 27th 04, 05:01 PM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:40:12 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Ever do Palmerola (now referred to as Soto Cano, IIRC)? Flew in and out of
>there a few times via C-141 when we did a road construction project over in
>Yorro Province of Honduras. When I was there (late 87 and early 88), the
>Army MI folks were using it to operate RC-12's doing their usual hush-hush
>stuff.
>
>I don't recall ever seeing a USAF OV-10 in operation (which IIRC ended in
>the early eighties), but I do remember seeing USMC variants flying out of
>Biggs AAF at Fort Bliss, TX while I was TDY down there in early 87 (I think
>they were participating in the JTF 6 counterdrug effort); interesting
>aircraft. The last one I saw was serving with the USFS up in Alaska, doing
>fire-fighting control work and I think also working with the smoke jumpers
>out of Fairbanks.

The USAF was still training FAC's in both the OV-10 and O-2A in 1984
at Patrick AFB. I deployed with a half-dozen AT-38s for a great two
weeks of flying--playing fast-mover fighters for the FAC students to
control. Since we had done the fighter orientation for the FAC
students about a month earlier at Holloman, teaching them high-threat
and low-threat tactics and basic bomb dropping, it was a lot of fun to
see the guys moving into their real assignment.

The air-FACs were deactivated about two years later and several of the
FACs that I had trained at Holloman were doing the attached ground-FAC
mission with battalions in the brigade that I was assigned to as ALO
out of Fort Carson. They weren't very happy about the ground job and
were all counting the days until their tour was up and they could
cross-train into another aircraft.

I worked with a lot of Broncos in '72/'73 where they were doing both
day and night work throughout SVN, southern Laos and Cambodia. A close
friend of mine has the dubious distinction of being one of only two
OV-10 drivers who was shot down and captured by the NVN. He spent
about seven months in the Hilton and Plantation.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Kevin Brooks

August 27th 04, 05:26 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:40:12 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ever do Palmerola (now referred to as Soto Cano, IIRC)? Flew in and out
of
> >there a few times via C-141 when we did a road construction project over
in
> >Yorro Province of Honduras. When I was there (late 87 and early 88), the
> >Army MI folks were using it to operate RC-12's doing their usual
hush-hush
> >stuff.
> >
> >I don't recall ever seeing a USAF OV-10 in operation (which IIRC ended in
> >the early eighties), but I do remember seeing USMC variants flying out of
> >Biggs AAF at Fort Bliss, TX while I was TDY down there in early 87 (I
think
> >they were participating in the JTF 6 counterdrug effort); interesting
> >aircraft. The last one I saw was serving with the USFS up in Alaska,
doing
> >fire-fighting control work and I think also working with the smoke
jumpers
> >out of Fairbanks.
>
> The USAF was still training FAC's in both the OV-10 and O-2A in 1984
> at Patrick AFB. I deployed with a half-dozen AT-38s for a great two
> weeks of flying--playing fast-mover fighters for the FAC students to
> control. Since we had done the fighter orientation for the FAC
> students about a month earlier at Holloman, teaching them high-threat
> and low-threat tactics and basic bomb dropping, it was a lot of fun to
> see the guys moving into their real assignment.
>
> The air-FACs were deactivated about two years later and several of the
> FACs that I had trained at Holloman were doing the attached ground-FAC
> mission with battalions in the brigade that I was assigned to as ALO
> out of Fort Carson. They weren't very happy about the ground job and
> were all counting the days until their tour was up and they could
> cross-train into another aircraft.
>
> I worked with a lot of Broncos in '72/'73 where they were doing both
> day and night work throughout SVN, southern Laos and Cambodia. A close
> friend of mine has the dubious distinction of being one of only two
> OV-10 drivers who was shot down and captured by the NVN. He spent
> about seven months in the Hilton and Plantation.

During the Honduran operation I mentioned above, one of the maintenance
CWO's for the task force was a former aviator type who had later lost his
flight ticket due to medical reasons (he had flown both helos and C-12's
before that happened). He was one of the few Army aviators (if not the only
one) to have spent time as a PW in Vietnam; he had gone down way up in I
Corps, near the DMZ, when his OH-6 Loach took ground fire (this would also
have been around 1972, IIRC). The "small world" theory comes into play ehre,
because one of the units that went out looking for him was my bother's
dustoff unit, the 571st (he was there from early 71 to early 72).

Brooks

>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

Robert Briggs

August 27th 04, 05:47 PM

M. J. Powell wrote:
> ArtKramr wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:

> > > And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
> > > example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
> > > from Willie's wings ...
> >
> > I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
> > Willies wings. But we went to war. They didn'lt.

> There were quite a number of RAF erks, particularly at Manston, who
> would disagree with you.
>
> But they can't. They died around the aircraft they were servicing.
>
> Did Stansted get raided much?

Mike, don't forget that the erks at Manston and other RAF fields were
in greater danger years before Art arrived at Stansted than when he
was on his missions ...

OXMORON1

August 27th 04, 06:12 PM

Robert wrote:
>Mike, don't forget that the erks at Manston and other RAF fields were
>in greater danger years before Art arrived at Stansted than when he
>was on his missions ...

Art was still in High School then.

Rick

Kevin Brooks

August 27th 04, 06:19 PM

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> M. J. Powell wrote:
> > ArtKramr wrote:
> > > Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > > > And I *do* wonder how much chance Art would have stood without, for
> > > > example, the erks who maintained those noisy fan thingies hanging
> > > > from Willie's wings ...
> > >
> > > I love the guys that maintained the noisy fan thingies that hung from
> > > Willies wings. But we went to war. They didn'lt.
>
> > There were quite a number of RAF erks, particularly at Manston, who
> > would disagree with you.
> >
> > But they can't. They died around the aircraft they were servicing.
> >
> > Did Stansted get raided much?
>
> Mike, don't forget that the erks at Manston and other RAF fields were
> in greater danger years before Art arrived at Stansted than when he
> was on his missions ...

WHAT!? You mean there was a war on *before* Art got personally involved???
That's what I get for tossing all of those "worthless books" in the trash
and relying solely upon Art for my military history... :-)

Brooks

Paul J. Adam

August 28th 04, 10:53 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>From: Howard Berkowitz
>>Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
>>target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
>>organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
>>vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
>>analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
>>spear also has a staff.
>
>How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid? In the
>end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We did the
>hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
>And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or were
>buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable sheltered
>lives and total
>safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching hell over
>Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.

Well, thank you, Art. If I get sent to Basra ('support to operations'
isn't just a job title here), will you tell the insurgents that I'm down
for "easy comfortable sheltered life" and to make sure I come home
safely?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Stephen Harding

August 29th 04, 02:30 PM

> writes
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>> From: Howard Berkowitz
>> Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
>> target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
>> organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
>> vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
>> analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
>> spear also has a staff.
>
>
> How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid?
> In the
> end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We
> did the
> hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
> And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or
> were
> buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable
> sheltered
> lives and total
> safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching
> hell over
> Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.

You know it's been claimed that a lot of grunts look at the
"fly boys" as living a life of luxury. A mission ranging from
maybe a couple hours to perhaps as long as 8, much of which
won't actually have metal whizzing about your head, after which
you return to a base that is largely free of flying metal to
go sleep in a genuine bunk, more than likely with heat in the
room, and hot meals. Even a bar to wash down the day's disappointment
or success.

Not bad considering the grunt stuck out in a fox hole with cold
meals from a can when there is time to eat, or laying in a frozen
hole when there is time to sleep.

I'm a whimp compared with you, but perhaps you were a whimp compared
to some GI during the month of mid-Dec through mid-January and
beyond, in Luxembourg/France/Belgium during 1944, no?

SMH

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 06:06 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 8/29/2004 6:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
> writes
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>>> From: Howard Berkowitz
>>> Date: 8/25/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
>>> target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
>>> organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
>>> vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
>>> analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
>>> spear also has a staff.
>>
>>
>> How does any of that limit or make my combat observations less valid?
>> In the
>> end the guys you are talking about did the easy work in an office. We
>> did the
>> hard work as you put it on the pointy end of the spear.
>> And none of those guys you are refering to ever went down in flames or
>> were
>> buried in foreign graves. Screw 'em all with their easy comfortable
>> sheltered
>> lives and total
>> safety. While they were enjoying Martinis in London we were catching
>> hell over
>> Germany and many of us never came back. Screw 'em all.
>
>You know it's been claimed that a lot of grunts look at the
>"fly boys" as living a life of luxury. A mission ranging from
>maybe a couple hours to perhaps as long as 8, much of which
>won't actually have metal whizzing about your head, after which
>you return to a base that is largely free of flying metal to
>go sleep in a genuine bunk, more than likely with heat in the
>room, and hot meals. Even a bar to wash down the day's disappointment
>or success.
>
>Not bad considering the grunt stuck out in a fox hole with cold
>meals from a can when there is time to eat, or laying in a frozen
>hole when there is time to sleep.
>
>I'm a whimp compared with you, but perhaps you were a whimp compared
>to some GI during the month of mid-Dec through mid-January and
>beyond, in Luxembourg/France/Belgium during 1944, no?
>
>
>SMH
>
During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to protect
our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices in Paris
and London during that battle. Screw em.

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

Howard Berkowitz

August 29th 04, 06:27 PM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to
> protect
> our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices in
> Paris
> and London during that battle. Screw em.
>
>
I suppose it depends on what you consider the offices, say, in Bletchley
Park. In particular, it's interesting to compare the incidence of combat
PTSD and the very real high incidence of severe mental illness among
COMINT analysts.

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 06:38 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 8/29/2004 10:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to
>> protect
>> our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices in
>> Paris
>> and London during that battle. Screw em.
>>
>>
>I suppose it depends on what you consider the offices, say, in Bletchley
>Park. In particular, it's interesting to compare the incidence of combat
>PTSD and the very real high incidence of severe mental illness among
>COMINT analysts.
>

Bletchley Park was neither in London or Paris.

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

Howard Berkowitz

August 29th 04, 08:37 PM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 8/29/2004 10:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to
> >> protect
> >> our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices
> >> in
> >> Paris
> >> and London during that battle. Screw em.
> >>
> >>
> >I suppose it depends on what you consider the offices, say, in Bletchley
> >Park. In particular, it's interesting to compare the incidence of combat
> >PTSD and the very real high incidence of severe mental illness among
> >COMINT analysts.
> >
>
>
> Bletchley Park was neither in London or Paris.
>

Exactly. And, for that matter, some of those in London or Paris may
have sipped a martini and STILL made major contributions. The London
Controlling Section comes to mind, as does the XX Committee and its US
counterparts. The ASW Research Group had considerable influence on
bomber effectiveness and survival.

Whether you intend it or not, however, you seem to lump everyone who was
not combat aircrew into an inferior category, even when their particular
contribution to the war effort could be stressful and dangerous. I have
no problem with your saying that combat aircrew form one specific band
of brothers. I do have a problem with your denying that any other band
of brothers could exist or have meaning, or make any meaningful
contribution.

During the Battle of the Atlantic, merchant sailors, at times, had
casualties as bad as yours. As I have mentioned, COMINT analysts could
be shattered mentally by their efforts. William F. Friedman, in my firm
opinion, made contributions to winning the war as much as anyone that
can be named -- even though his peak efforts and breakdown came just
before the start of war.

People like Louis Slotin and Harry Daghlian died as or more horribly
than any combat crewmen, as a result of laboratory accidents.

Had it not been for some people in offices, like Constance
Babington-Smith, you might not have known the appropriate targets.
Perhaps their work wasn't as glamorous and warrior-like, but it was
equally important.

If you have not read it, I suggest John Keegan's _Mask of Command_.
There are certain personalities and skills needed in different positions
and different eras. Alexander the Great was a fantastic leader for his
milieu, but his style would have gotten you killed very quickly if he
led bomber missions.

Bob Coe

August 29th 04, 09:12 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to protect
> our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices in Paris
> and London during that battle. Screw em.

and I thought Kerry was the biggest braggart. You take the cake.

We're going to have to start calling you Miles Gloriosus!

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/08/the_braggart_so.php
Miles: I, Miles Gloriosus,
I, slaughterer of thousands,
I, oppressor of the meek,
Subduer of the weak,
Degrader of the Greek,
Destroyer of the Turk,
Must hurry back to work.

I, in war the most admired,
In wit the most inspired,
In love the most desired,
In dress the best displayed --
I am a parade.

Soldiers: Look at those eyes, cunning and keen,
Look at the size of those thighs, like a mighty machine.

Miles: My bride!
My bride!
Inform my lucky bride:
The fabled arms of
Miles are open wide.
Make haste!
Make haste!
I have no time to waste:
There are shrines I should be sacking,
Ribs I should be cracking,
Eyes to gouge and bounty to divide,
Bring me my bride!

Jack

August 29th 04, 10:09 PM

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> I suppose it depends on what you consider the offices, say, in Bletchley
> Park. In particular, it's interesting to compare the incidence of combat
> PTSD and the very real high incidence of severe mental illness among
> COMINT analysts.

Some may say it goes with the territory.

Jack

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 10:47 PM

>Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
>From: Howard Berkowitz

>If you have not read it, I suggest John Keegan's _Mask of Command_.
>There are certain pers

Keegan was never in combat nor was he in command of anything. And while writing
the above book he was never even even wounded. But he got rich writing 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

Howard Berkowitz

August 29th 04, 11:00 PM

In article >, Jack
> wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > I suppose it depends on what you consider the offices, say, in
> > Bletchley
> > Park. In particular, it's interesting to compare the incidence of
> > combat
> > PTSD and the very real high incidence of severe mental illness among
> > COMINT analysts.
>
> Some may say it goes with the territory.
>
>
> Jack

In both cases, that's probably quite correct.

Howard Berkowitz

August 29th 04, 11:10 PM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
>
> >If you have not read it, I suggest John Keegan's _Mask of Command_.
> >There are certain pers
>
> Keegan was never in combat nor was he in command of anything. And while
> writing
> the above book he was never even even wounded. But he got rich writing
> it.
>

Art, I respect many things you have done. But you are a bigot when it
comes to combat -- and indeed you've criticized the combat experience of
other than bombat crews.

How do you know Keegan is rich? He is a respected scholar, true.

Hap Arnold was incompetent because he never was in combat. Yes or no?
No qualifying remarks as long as you insist on the binary distinction --
can't comment meaningfully on things one has not experienced. Of
course, you didn't experience senior command, so you can't judge who was
and was not competent. Sort of circular logic there, hmmmm?

I have several obstetrics and gynecology textbooks written by men. By
your logic, they have to go.

We'd better get rid of most 20th century books on the American Civil
War, and certainly on wars before then. Or is it that combat in any war
makes you an authority on any other? Indeed might be interesting to have
David Hackworth write the authoritative book on the Macedonian phalanx,
eh?

Most of the psychiatry library has to go, because relatively few
psychiatrists are psychotic.

I'm not sure if there's anyone that got into the NFL Hall of Fame as
both a player and coach. Some Hall of Fame coaches never personally put
a foot on a pro field, wearing pads. Guess they don't know what they are
talking about, either.

Jack

August 29th 04, 11:31 PM

Howard Berkowitz wrote re Art Kramer:

> Some Hall of Fame coaches never personally put
> a foot on a pro field, wearing pads. Guess they don't know what they are
> talking about, either.

Why are we bothering?

Surely the degree to which we continue to attempt to rehabilitate Art
indicates how great is the loss we feel in his continuing slide. I
encourage everyone to ignore the irrational, and to address an issue
without responding specifically to the source.

The NG seems to have lost many of its non-US contributors, except for an
occasional nut-case drawn insect-like to the odor of pointless
contention, and a few stalwarts with iron stomachs who love the subject
too well. I will be glad when the US election is over, whatever the
outcome [though I have my preferences, of course].

Chin up, it won't be long now.

Jack

Howard Berkowitz

August 30th 04, 02:17 AM

In article >, Jack
> wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz wrote re Art Kramer:
>
> > Some Hall of Fame coaches never personally put
> > a foot on a pro field, wearing pads. Guess they don't know what they
> > are
> > talking about, either.
>
> Why are we bothering?
>
> Surely the degree to which we continue to attempt to rehabilitate Art
> indicates how great is the loss we feel in his continuing slide. I
> encourage everyone to ignore the irrational, and to address an issue
> without responding specifically to the source.

For me, it is one of sadness, because Art does have great and meaningful
memories, of direct experience that are worth commemorating. When I
found out that in later life, he was a photography writer from whom I
learned much, I wanted even more to listen.

Sadly, I only wish that he understood that his own experiences will gain
a respectful ear, without the need to trash anyone who didn't do the
same thing.

Dave Eadsforth

August 30th 04, 08:42 AM

In article <IMqYc.15615$ni.2925@okepread01>, Bob Coe >
writes
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
>> During that period I was 10,000 feet over Bastogne bombing panzers to protect
>> our troops. But I take nothing away from the guys sitting in offices in Paris
>> and London during that battle. Screw em.
>
>and I thought Kerry was the biggest braggart. You take the cake.
>
>We're going to have to start calling you Miles Gloriosus!
>
>http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/08/the_braggart_so.php
>Miles: I, Miles Gloriosus,
>I, slaughterer of thousands,
>I, oppressor of the meek,
>Subduer of the weak,
>Degrader of the Greek,
>Destroyer of the Turk,
>Must hurry back to work.
>
>I, in war the most admired,
>In wit the most inspired,
>In love the most desired,
>In dress the best displayed --
>I am a parade.
>
>Soldiers: Look at those eyes, cunning and keen,
>Look at the size of those thighs, like a mighty machine.
>
>Miles: My bride!
>My bride!
>Inform my lucky bride:
>The fabled arms of
>Miles are open wide.
>Make haste!
>Make haste!
>I have no time to waste:
>There are shrines I should be sacking,
>Ribs I should be cracking,
>Eyes to gouge and bounty to divide,
>Bring me my bride!
>
>
>
Ah, but could anyone exceed the performance delivered by Leon Green?

>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth