First Modern Air-Air refueling

[Charles Talleyrand]

When was the first modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean
"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)".

This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems
would not be compatible with a modern airplane.

For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done?
Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy
system works.

-Charles Talleyrand

[Peter Twydell[_2_]]

In message
>,
Charles Talleyrand > writes
>When was the first modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean
>"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)".
>
>This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems
>would not be compatible with a modern airplane.
>
AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems.

http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-company-1934-1985/air-to-air-refuellin
g-takes-off.aspx

>For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done?
>Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy
>system works.
>
Possibly FR again.

I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number
of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen,
a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo?

>-Charles Talleyrand

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Charles Talleyrand]

On Jun 3, 12:57*pm, Peter Twydell > wrote:
> In message
> >,
> Charles Talleyrand > writes>When was the first modern air-air refueling? *By modern I mean
> >"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)".
>
> >This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems
> >would not be compatible with a modern airplane.
>
> AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems.
>
> http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-company-1934-1985/air-to-air-refue...
> g-takes-off.aspx

That's true. But the early work by them was using the "loop" method,
and a modern F-18 could not hook up. The early KC-29s were also
incompatible.

>
> >For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done?
> >Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy
> >system works.
>
> Possibly FR again.
>
> I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number
> of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen,
> a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo?


I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
when this was developed.

There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1
offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It
doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
something.

-Randy

[Peter Twydell[_2_]]

In message
>,
Charles Talleyrand > writes
>On Jun 3, 12:57*pm, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>> In message
>> >,
>> Charles Talleyrand > writes>When was the first
>>modern air-air refueling? *By modern I mean
>> >"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)".
>>
>> >This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems
>> >would not be compatible with a modern airplane.
>>
>> AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems.
>>
>> http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-company-1934-1985/air-to-air-refue...
>> g-takes-off.aspx
>
>That's true. But the early work by them was using the "loop" method,
>and a modern F-18 could not hook up. The early KC-29s were also
>incompatible.
>

Yes, the early work was the loop method, as the article says. Read it
carefully and you'll see that they developed the probe and drogue
system, which is one of the two modern systems. The latest versions
might well differ from the early ones, but the principle is the same. FR
(now Cobham) have always been at the forefront, so it's probably them in
any case.

>>
>> >For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done?
>> >Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy
>> >system works.
>>
>> Possibly FR again.
>>
>> I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number
>> of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen,
>> a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo?
>
>
>I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
>when this was developed.
>
>There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1
>offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
>and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It
>doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
>something.
>

Depends how much the receiver needs, I suppose. Enough to get you back
to the carrier would do.

>-Randy
>
>

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[John Weiss[_4_]]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
> when this was developed.
>
> There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1
> offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
> and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It
> doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
> something.

In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane
(F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about
10K total to give. Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6
for the recovery. Might get a bit more by consolidating from the
offgoing tanker.

[guy]

On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
> In message
> >,
> Charles Talleyrand > writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 3, 12:57 pm, Peter Twydell > wrote:
> >> In message
> >> >,
> >> Charles Talleyrand > writes>When was the first
> >>modern air-air refueling? By modern I mean
> >> >"compatible with a modern tanker/receiver (either boom or hose)".
>
> >> >This question seems to be tricky, in that many of the early systems
> >> >would not be compatible with a modern airplane.
>
> >> AFAIK Flight Refuelling Ltd was the pioneer in probe and drogue systems.
>
> >>http://www.cobham75.com/cobham-the-company-1934-1985/air-to-air-refue....
> >> g-takes-off.aspx
>
> >That's true. *But the early work by them was using the "loop" method,
> >and a modern F-18 could not hook up. *The early KC-29s were also
> >incompatible.
>
> Yes, the early work was the loop method, as the article says. Read it
> carefully and you'll see that they developed the probe and drogue
> system, which is one of the two modern systems. The latest versions
> might well differ from the early ones, but the principle is the same. FR
> (now Cobham) have always been at the forefront, so it's probably them in
> any case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >For bonus points, when was the first carrier based refueling done?
> >> >Both the tanker and receiver must be carrier based, but the buddy
> >> >system works.
>
> >> Possibly FR again.
>
> >> I have seen (a few decades ago) a picture of a mixed bunch of a number
> >> of aircraft in line using the buddy system. ISTR there was a Sea Vixen,
> >> a Buccaneer and an A-3 or A-4, maybe more. Anyone know the photo?
>
> >I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
> >when this was developed.
>
> >There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1
> >offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
> >and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It
> >doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
> >something.
>
> Depends how much the receiver needs, I suppose. Enough to get you back
> to the carrier would do.
>
> >-Randy
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Ying tong iddle-i po!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
Lincolns for the assault on Japan?

Guy

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"guy" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:

>
> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>
> Guy

Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third
of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards
the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial
gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.

50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then
intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the
long-range operations.

Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype
Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose system.
It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed
of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there
being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable.

Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.

Keith

[Charles Talleyrand]

On Jun 3, 11:05*pm, "John Weiss" > wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> > I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
> > when this was developed.
>
> > There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine an A-1
> > offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
> > and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of that era use. *It
> > doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
> > something.
>
> In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane
> (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about
> 10K total to give. *Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6
> for the recovery. *Might get a bit more by consolidating from the
> offgoing tanker.

Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds
12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks.

-Still learning
-Charles

[Dan[_12_]]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:05 pm, "John Weiss" > wrote:
>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>> I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't know
>>> when this was developed.
>>> There is something I don't understand though. I cannot imagine an A-1
>>> offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess based on gross
>>> and empty weight). How much fuel did a jet of that era use. It
>>> doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I must be missing
>>> something.
>> In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane
>> (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had about
>> 10K total to give. Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and save 6
>> for the recovery. Might get a bit more by consolidating from the
>> offgoing tanker.
>
> Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds
> 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks.
>
> -Still learning
> -Charles

The buddy refuel was to top off an aircraft that was cat launched.
That way the receiving aircraft could launch with more ordnance and
replace the fuel used during launch.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "guy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>
>>
>> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
>> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>>
>> Guy
>
> Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
> third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
> placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted
> of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.
>
> 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was
> then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to
> mount the long-range operations.
>
> Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype
> Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose
> system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an
> indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in
> cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the
> receiver's hauling cable.
>
> Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>
> Keith

Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had
Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S.
helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two
bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate
the end of the war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "guy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
>>> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>>>
>>> Guy
>>
>> Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
>> third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
>> placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of
>> two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.
>>
>> 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was
>> then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to
>> mount the long-range operations.
>>
>> Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype
>> Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose
>> system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated
>> airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at
>> night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling
>> cable.
>>
>> Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big.

The bang they made was :)

Keith

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "guy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
>>>> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>>>>
>>>> Guy
>>>
>>> Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
>>> third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
>>> placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply
>>> consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb
>>> bay.
>>>
>>> 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It
>>> was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver
>>> aircraft to mount the long-range operations.
>>>
>>> Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the
>>> prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the
>>> looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out
>>> at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over
>>> or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating
>>> the receiver's hauling cable.
>>>
>>> Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>
>> Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big.
>
> The bang they made was :)
>
> Keith

There you go using technical terms again.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Weiss[_4_]]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

>>> I do know that an A-1 Skyraider could buddy refuel, but I don't
>>> know when this was developed.
>>
>>> There is something I don't understand though. *I cannot imagine
>>> an A-1 offloading more than 8,000 pounds of fuel (wild guess
>>> based on gross and empty weight). *How much fuel did a jet of
>>> that era use. *It doesn't seem productive to me, so I figure I
>>> must be missing something.
>>
>> In the 80s and 90s, 2,000# was a standard give to a single airplane
>> (F-4, A-6, A-7...) in many cases, and a full-cycle A-6 tanker had
>> about 10K total to give. *Give 4K to a pair of F-4s off the cat and
>> save 6 for the recovery. *Might get a bit more by consolidating
>> from the offgoing tanker.

> Can you tell me more? How much would 2000# really help? An f-4 holds
> 12000# of internal fuel and 20000# total with three drop tanks.

An F-4 or A-6 burned 4-5,000 pph at loiter; an A-7 less. The 2K off
the cat was essentially a top-off after the afterburner takeoff and
climb so the F-4 left the carrier at altitude (~5,000') with full tanks.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 7:00�am, Dan > wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>
> >> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
> >> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>
> >> Guy
>
> > Yes. �In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
> > third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
> > placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted
> > of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.
>
> > 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was
> > then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to
> > mount the long-range operations.
>
> > Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype
> > Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose
> > system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an
> > indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in
> > cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the
> > receiver's hauling cable.
>
> > Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>
> > Keith
>
> � � Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had
> Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S.
> helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two
> bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate
> the end of the war.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dan.

Are YOU gloating over destruction and loss of lives?

Caught you ;)

But I guess it is OK b/c Japan was the enemy, right?

I wouldn't call vaporization, loss of eyesight, radiation burns, and
radiation sickness plus all the lhysical damage to Hiroshima and
Nagasaki merely a nice "fireworks" show. BTW, Japan didn't surrender
after either of the two A-bombings, but did when the USSR entered the
war against them. And, Truman halted the third bomb core from delivery
to Tinian.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 4, 7:00�am, Dan > wrote:
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>> > "guy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>
>> >> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
>> >> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>>
>> >> Guy
>>
>> > Yes. �In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
>> > third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
>> > placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted
>> > of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.
>>
>> > 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was
>> > then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to
>> > mount the long-range operations.
>>
>> > Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the
>> > prototype
>> > Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the looped hose
>> > system. It was found that refuelling could be carried out at an
>> > indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in
>> > cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the
>> > receiver's hauling cable.
>>
>> > Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>>
>> > Keith
>>
>> � � Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big. The Brits had
>> Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs. Surely you wouldn't begrudge the U.S.
>> helping the Japanese with urban renewal, would you? Besides, those two
>> bombs provided Japan with some really nice fireworks to help celebrate
>> the end of the war.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Dan.
>
> Are YOU gloating over destruction and loss of lives?
>
> Caught you ;)
>
> But I guess it is OK b/c Japan was the enemy, right?
>
> I wouldn't call vaporization, loss of eyesight, radiation burns, and
> radiation sickness plus all the lhysical damage to Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki merely a nice "fireworks" show. BTW, Japan didn't surrender
> after either of the two A-bombings, but did when the USSR entered the
> war against them.

That statement is factually correct but misleading.

We know from the Japanese that the use of nuclear weapons
was the crucial factor. The intervention of the Soviets was important
but because it removed any possibility that they might broker
a better deal than abject surrender but in itself it would have
no more ended the war than did the destruction of the Japanese
armies in Burma.

The Emperor in his speech to the nation made this clear.

<Quote>
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power
of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable.
</Quote>

He made no mention of the Soviet Invasion.

Keith

[Alan Dicey]

Dan wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "guy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 June, 22:01, Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they not develop a system to refuel Tiger Force Lancasters/
>>>>> Lincolns for the assault on Japan?
>>>>>
>>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>> Yes. In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the
>>>> third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was
>>>> placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply
>>>> consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the
>>>> bomb bay.
>>>>
>>>> 50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It
>>>> was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver
>>>> aircraft to mount the long-range operations.
>>>>
>>>> Trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the
>>>> prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the
>>>> looped hose system. It was found that refuelling could be carried
>>>> out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude,
>>>> over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in
>>>> illuminating the receiver's hauling cable.
>>>>
>>>> Then the Americans went and dropped a couple of really big bombs.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>
>>> Come on, Keith, those bombs weren't all that big.
>>
>> The bang they made was :)
>>
>> Keith
>
> There you go using technical terms again.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a
point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes.

Note also that the destruction was so graphic because Japanese
contruction anticipated earthquakes. Houses were lightly built and
would be flattenend by the blast wave. The concrete and steel structure
at Ground Zero in Hiroshima survives, damaged but not destroyed,
vapourised, or the victim of some other fantastic fate.


The first "modern" refuelling system would be Flight Refuelling's probe
and drogue system, deployed in the late '40's but demonstrated before
the war.

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey >
wrote:

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a
> point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes.

Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang
they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey >
>wrote:
>
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a
>> point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes.
>
>Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang
>they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing.

Auyp. And that's another point glaringly missed by the anti-nuke
crowd.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:14:41 -0500, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:24:40 -0400, Bill Kambic >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 4, 2:22*pm, Alan Dicey >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less destructive than the Tokyo raids, a
>>>> point often glossed over by modern anti-nukes.
>>>
>>>Overall less destructive but you have to admit, the big-assed bang
>>>they made worked a lot faster than the firebombing.
>>
>>Auyp. And that's another point glaringly missed by the anti-nuke
>>crowd.
>
>One bomb, one airplane, one crew at risk versus waves of
>B-17/B-24,Wellingtons, etc. Clear definition of the concept of
>"economy of force" and "force multiplier".

Not to mention the waves of landing craft, carrier aircraft...and
Japanese school girls charging Marines while armed with sharpened
sticks.

>Now, consider those weapons were in the 20KT range. The tactical nukes
>we babied in the cold war were considerably smaller in dimension while
>overwhelming larger in yields.

Indeed. Perhaps my most sobering designation of the Cold War was
Certified Nuclear Weapons Delivery Pilot.