Daryl Hunt Rides Again (was Re: [Admin] us.military.army FAQ M1A4 - Special Post -)

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "David W" > wrote in message
> ...
> > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone
> > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
>
> They'll just screw it up so let me.

How nice of you to make the claims again.
I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.

>
> I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at FT Hood
> with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said that
> the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the 82nd
> until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a Guards
> head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they stopped
> the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit cocky and
> that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it true?
> You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could have
> happened.

Does this pass the smell test ?
That live ammo was on an exercise ?
Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?

I'd say your "source" was bull****ting you.


> As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them lined
> up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment (power
> units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.

IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?

Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired and
placed in storage in 1968.

BTW, how many did you see there at Groom Lake ?

>
> According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was FB-4.
> A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to the
> Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were counted as
> Bombers. Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the
> designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik Turkey at
> one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4 since
> it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many major
> installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2 and
> doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them there.

Lets see, I can't find a thing in McD's documentation showing where the
F-4 Phantom II was ever called the "FB-4"
And the funny thing is no on ever gave a similar designation to any of the
other tactical fighter/bombers that were roled to carry
"instant sunshine".
Like the F-100 and F-105, or the F-104's



> I stated that I saw a flight of Aircraft flying overhead just outside of
> Denver that had twin booms. I was not too old then. I asked my Uncle (he
> retired from Lackland as the QA Chief as a GS-16 and 33 years) and he told
> me they were P-38s. Now who do I believe, an 33 year veteran from an AF
> Base dating back to 1942 or do I believe a bunch of Net Nannies that think
> that if it's not on the internet, it can't possibly exist. Oh, and let's
> not leave out that one supposedly contacted the Active Duty AF and asked if
> the P-38 was in the inventory in the 50s. Considering that there was NO
> Active runways with fighters on them for a few hundred miles, chances are
> they came from Buckley Air Field and the Actives would have no knowledge of
> what was there.

Does this even sound right ?
That the USAF wouldn't know what aircraft an Air Guard unit has ?


>
> As for the P-38s being in Korea, according to an old Fighter Jock from
> Korea, they were there and were replaced on a one to one basis due to combat
> losses with the new P-80s. Of course, most of those losses were ground
> mishaps. I even posted one URL (I don't care to netnanny to find it again)
> where the P-38 was used for recon in Korea. Makes sense considering the
> P-38 could cruise at over 400 mph at 40,000 feet. Physics dicates that the
> Mig-15 couldn't get there in time to stop it. It would be long gone before
> the Mig could get the altitude. Once again, your buddies like to just rave
> on about history that isn't on the Internet as most History isn't. But, if
> it's not on the Search Engines, it just can't exist.

Funny thing is the USAF doesn't have any units with P-38 by 1947.
All had converted to either P-51, P-47 or to jets.

Funny how all those "P-38" that were combat losses didn't get recorded by
the USAF. How come none are listed in any roster of aircraft losses during
the Korean war ?
I would direct you to the following link.

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm

Can you explain why they list no P-38 losses ?

Oh, and FWI, any remaining P-38 were redesignated F-38 in 1949.....

And no there arn't any of those listed either.


> Now, go ahead and swarm away. But read the Charter before you do and know
> that your swarming is license for the trolls to exist in here in the levels
> that they are. Why not, it's accepted practice.

The only troll(ette) around here is you daryl.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Jay T. Beatty]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "David W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone
> > > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
> >
> > They'll just screw it up so let me.
>
> How nice of you to make the claims again.
> I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
>
> >
> > I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at FT
Hood
> > with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said
that
> > the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the
82nd
> > until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a Guards
> > head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they
stopped
> > the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit cocky
and
> > that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it
true?
> > You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could
have
> > happened.
>
> Does this pass the smell test ?
> That live ammo was on an exercise ?
> Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?
>
> I'd say your "source" was bull****ting you.
>
>
> > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them
lined
> > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment
(power
> > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
>
> IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
>
> Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired and
> placed in storage in 1968.
>
> BTW, how many did you see there at Groom Lake ?
>
> >
> > According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
FB-4.
> > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
the
> > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> > designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were counted
as
> > Bombers. Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the
> > designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik Turkey
at
> > one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4
since
> > it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many
major
> > installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2 and
> > doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
there.
>
> Lets see, I can't find a thing in McD's documentation showing where the
> F-4 Phantom II was ever called the "FB-4"
> And the funny thing is no on ever gave a similar designation to any of the
> other tactical fighter/bombers that were roled to carry
> "instant sunshine".
> Like the F-100 and F-105, or the F-104's
>
>
>
> > I stated that I saw a flight of Aircraft flying overhead just outside of
> > Denver that had twin booms. I was not too old then. I asked my Uncle
(he
> > retired from Lackland as the QA Chief as a GS-16 and 33 years) and he
told
> > me they were P-38s. Now who do I believe, an 33 year veteran from an
AF
> > Base dating back to 1942 or do I believe a bunch of Net Nannies that
think
> > that if it's not on the internet, it can't possibly exist. Oh, and
let's
> > not leave out that one supposedly contacted the Active Duty AF and asked
if
> > the P-38 was in the inventory in the 50s. Considering that there was NO
> > Active runways with fighters on them for a few hundred miles, chances
are
> > they came from Buckley Air Field and the Actives would have no knowledge
of
> > what was there.
>
> Does this even sound right ?
> That the USAF wouldn't know what aircraft an Air Guard unit has ?
>
>
> >
> > As for the P-38s being in Korea, according to an old Fighter Jock from
> > Korea, they were there and were replaced on a one to one basis due to
combat
> > losses with the new P-80s. Of course, most of those losses were ground
> > mishaps. I even posted one URL (I don't care to netnanny to find it
again)
> > where the P-38 was used for recon in Korea. Makes sense considering the
> > P-38 could cruise at over 400 mph at 40,000 feet. Physics dicates that
the
> > Mig-15 couldn't get there in time to stop it. It would be long gone
before
> > the Mig could get the altitude. Once again, your buddies like to just
rave
> > on about history that isn't on the Internet as most History isn't. But,
if
> > it's not on the Search Engines, it just can't exist.
>
> Funny thing is the USAF doesn't have any units with P-38 by 1947.
> All had converted to either P-51, P-47 or to jets.
>
> Funny how all those "P-38" that were combat losses didn't get recorded by
> the USAF. How come none are listed in any roster of aircraft losses during
> the Korean war ?
> I would direct you to the following link.
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm
>
> Can you explain why they list no P-38 losses ?
>
> Oh, and FWI, any remaining P-38 were redesignated F-38 in 1949.....
>
> And no there arn't any of those listed either.
>
>
> > Now, go ahead and swarm away. But read the Charter before you do and
know
> > that your swarming is license for the trolls to exist in here in the
levels
> > that they are. Why not, it's accepted practice.
>
> The only troll(ette) around here is you daryl.
>
As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been
involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I
mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
soldiers.

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:


> > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them lined
> > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment (power
> > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
>
> IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
>
> Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired and
> placed in storage in 1968.

The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
near, but not over, Plant 42.

However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
agreement with Tank Fixer.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Smartace11]

> According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
>FB-4.
>> > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
>the
>> > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
>> > designator from the F-111. Wit

Not sure what the original designator of the Navy F-4 was. Could have been
FB-4. Did the Navy have a nuclear role for the plane?

The first AF version was an F-4B the AF called the F-110. Nearly all theF-4
wings in Europe sat nuke alert with real silver bullets.

[Tank Fixer]

In article . net>,
says...
>
> As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
> done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been
> involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near I
> mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> soldiers.

I have, Ft Benning and other places.
And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers
in a training exercise is absurd.

I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range.
They shut the place down for two days to investigate.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, smartace11
@aol.com says...
> > According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
> >FB-4.
> >> > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
> >the
> >> > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> >> > designator from the F-111. Wit
>
> Not sure what the original designator of the Navy F-4 was. Could have been
> FB-4. Did the Navy have a nuclear role for the plane?

F4H was the Navy desigation.


> The first AF version was an F-4B the AF called the F-110. Nearly all theF-4
> wings in Europe sat nuke alert with real silver bullets.

So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation.
One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them lined
> > > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment (power
> > > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
> >
> > IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
> >
> > Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired and
> > placed in storage in 1968.
>
> The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
> see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
> I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
> near, but not over, Plant 42.

Thanks, DM claims to have seen them at Groom Lake in the 1970's pre-
flighted and with start carts.

> However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
> agreement with Tank Fixer.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:

>So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation.
>One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on.

Please note that the FB-111 which SAC flew out of Pease and
Plattsburgh was a different model entirely than the F-111A/D/E/F
versions flown in TAC and USAFE. Larger wing, higher gross weight,
different avionics.


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

[TJ]

> > > According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
> FB-4.
> > > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
> the
> > > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> > > designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were
counted
> as
> > > Bombers. Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the
> > > designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik
Turkey
> at
> > > one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4
> since
> > > it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many
> major
> > > installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2
and
> > > doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
> there.
> >

I've never read such a biggest load of BS. The FB-111 and F-111 were exempt
from SALT. In similar fashion the SU-24 FENCER was also exempt. The
designation FB-111A to F-111G came about when they (FB-111As) were converted
eventually to serve in the tactical role when displaced from SAC. This had
nothing to do with SALT whatsover.

>The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
> there.

Absolute crap. The treaty covered heavy nuclear strategic bombers such as
B-52s and TU-95s not F-4s. If this was the case then why did the Turkish Air
Force continue with the dual key nuclear weapons delivery programme?

TJ

[Jay T. Beatty]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article . net>,
> says...
> >
> > As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
> > done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have
been
> > involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by
near I
> > mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> > soldiers.
>
> I have, Ft Benning and other places.
> And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers
> in a training exercise is absurd.
>
> I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range.
> They shut the place down for two days to investigate.
>
Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control.

>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[~Nins~]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "David W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone
> > > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
> >
> > They'll just screw it up so let me.
>
> How nice of you to make the claims again.
> I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
>
> >
> > I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at FT
Hood
> > with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said
that
> > the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the
82nd
> > until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a Guards
> > head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they
stopped
> > the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit cocky
and
> > that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it
true?
> > You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could
have
> > happened.
>
> Does this pass the smell test ?
> That live ammo was on an exercise ?
> Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?

Was it something like this type of exercise, EDRE when the brigade is on
DRB1, and the troops do not know if it is practice or for real? Would live
ammo be used then? Is this what he is referring to, possibly?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/82abn.htm
10th paragraph down "An EDRE is nothing more than a practice deployment
which involves the DRF 1 Task Force and possibly the DRF 2 and DRF 3 as
well. When the EDRE is called, no one knows if it is practice or real. The
units go through the entire alert, recall, and deployment procedures as if i
t is real. "

<snip>

[~Nins~]

"Jay T. Beatty" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > "David W" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > > > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone
> > > > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
> > >
> > > They'll just screw it up so let me.
> >
> > How nice of you to make the claims again.
> > I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
> >
> > >
> > > I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at
FT
> Hood
> > > with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said
> that
> > > the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the
> 82nd
> > > until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a
Guards
> > > head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they
> stopped
> > > the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit
cocky
> and
> > > that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it
> true?
> > > You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could
> have
> > > happened.
> >
> > Does this pass the smell test ?
> > That live ammo was on an exercise ?
> > Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?
> >
> > I'd say your "source" was bull****ting you.
> >
> >
> > > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them
> lined
> > > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment
> (power
> > > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
> >
> > IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
> >
> > Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired
and
> > placed in storage in 1968.
> >
> > BTW, how many did you see there at Groom Lake ?
> >
> > >
> > > According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
> FB-4.
> > > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
> the
> > > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> > > designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were
counted
> as
> > > Bombers. Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the
> > > designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik
Turkey
> at
> > > one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4
> since
> > > it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many
> major
> > > installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2
and
> > > doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
> there.
> >
> > Lets see, I can't find a thing in McD's documentation showing where the
> > F-4 Phantom II was ever called the "FB-4"
> > And the funny thing is no on ever gave a similar designation to any of
the
> > other tactical fighter/bombers that were roled to carry
> > "instant sunshine".
> > Like the F-100 and F-105, or the F-104's
> >
> >
> >
> > > I stated that I saw a flight of Aircraft flying overhead just outside
of
> > > Denver that had twin booms. I was not too old then. I asked my Uncle
> (he
> > > retired from Lackland as the QA Chief as a GS-16 and 33 years) and he
> told
> > > me they were P-38s. Now who do I believe, an 33 year veteran from an
> AF
> > > Base dating back to 1942 or do I believe a bunch of Net Nannies that
> think
> > > that if it's not on the internet, it can't possibly exist. Oh, and
> let's
> > > not leave out that one supposedly contacted the Active Duty AF and
asked
> if
> > > the P-38 was in the inventory in the 50s. Considering that there was
NO
> > > Active runways with fighters on them for a few hundred miles, chances
> are
> > > they came from Buckley Air Field and the Actives would have no
knowledge
> of
> > > what was there.
> >
> > Does this even sound right ?
> > That the USAF wouldn't know what aircraft an Air Guard unit has ?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As for the P-38s being in Korea, according to an old Fighter Jock from
> > > Korea, they were there and were replaced on a one to one basis due to
> combat
> > > losses with the new P-80s. Of course, most of those losses were
ground
> > > mishaps. I even posted one URL (I don't care to netnanny to find it
> again)
> > > where the P-38 was used for recon in Korea. Makes sense considering
the
> > > P-38 could cruise at over 400 mph at 40,000 feet. Physics dicates
that
> the
> > > Mig-15 couldn't get there in time to stop it. It would be long gone
> before
> > > the Mig could get the altitude. Once again, your buddies like to just
> rave
> > > on about history that isn't on the Internet as most History isn't.
But,
> if
> > > it's not on the Search Engines, it just can't exist.
> >
> > Funny thing is the USAF doesn't have any units with P-38 by 1947.
> > All had converted to either P-51, P-47 or to jets.
> >
> > Funny how all those "P-38" that were combat losses didn't get recorded
by
> > the USAF. How come none are listed in any roster of aircraft losses
during
> > the Korean war ?
> > I would direct you to the following link.
> >
> > http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm
> >
> > Can you explain why they list no P-38 losses ?
> >
> > Oh, and FWI, any remaining P-38 were redesignated F-38 in 1949.....
> >
> > And no there arn't any of those listed either.
> >
> >
> > > Now, go ahead and swarm away. But read the Charter before you do and
> know
> > > that your swarming is license for the trolls to exist in here in the
> levels
> > > that they are. Why not, it's accepted practice.
> >
> > The only troll(ette) around here is you daryl.
> >
> As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
> done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have been
> involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by near
I
> mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> soldiers.

Actually, I'm finding several references on the net where training with live
ammo is indicated.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2003/12/031204training.shtml

[Jay T. Beatty]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:kG2Ib.696416$Fm2.599288@attbi_s04...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > "David W" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > > > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these, anyone
> > > > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
> > >
> > > They'll just screw it up so let me.
> >
> > How nice of you to make the claims again.
> > I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
> >
> > >
> > > I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at
FT
> Hood
> > > with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He said
> that
> > > the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to the
> 82nd
> > > until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a
Guards
> > > head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they
> stopped
> > > the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit
cocky
> and
> > > that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is it
> true?
> > > You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it could
> have
> > > happened.
> >
> > Does this pass the smell test ?
> > That live ammo was on an exercise ?
> > Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?
>
> Was it something like this type of exercise, EDRE when the brigade is on
> DRB1, and the troops do not know if it is practice or for real? Would
live
> ammo be used then? Is this what he is referring to, possibly?
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/82abn.htm
> 10th paragraph down "An EDRE is nothing more than a practice deployment
> which involves the DRF 1 Task Force and possibly the DRF 2 and DRF 3 as
> well. When the EDRE is called, no one knows if it is practice or real. The
> units go through the entire alert, recall, and deployment procedures as if
i
> t is real. "
>
No, I was involved in several EDREs when I was in the 82nd and you always
knew it as not for real when you got to the unit and they didn't hand out
live ammo.

[~Nins~]

"Jay T. Beatty" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article . net>,
> > says...
> > >
> > > As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you
guys
> > > done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have
> been
> > > involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by
> near I
> > > mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> > > soldiers.
> >
> > I have, Ft Benning and other places.
> > And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other
soldiers
> > in a training exercise is absurd.
> >
> > I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range.
> > They shut the place down for two days to investigate.
> >
> Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control.

"nAt Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army has been
ordered to protect trees for the red-cockaded woodpecker by restricting
bivouacking, live fire and digging of foxholes.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1181 "

Well, going to go look up info on these LAW thingees.


>
> >
> > --
> > When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> > variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
>
>

[Pete]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> says...
> >

>
> >
> > According to McDonnel Douglas the original designator for the F-4 was
FB-4.
> > A designator is used to identify the mission of the Air Craft. Due to
the
> > Salt Treaties, the B designator had to be dropped as well as the B
> > designator from the F-111. With the Designator of FB, they were counted
as
> > Bombers.

No. The F-111 and FB-111 were basically two different a/c. Visually similar,
but different. And both were on nuc alert duty at various times and places.
Upper Heyford and Pease, for example.


> > Both Aircraft did Nuclear Payload duty before and after the
> > designator was dropped. The F-4 was a Nuclear Bomber in Incirlik Turkey
at
> > one time before the disignator had to be dropped. That made it a FB-4
since
> > it was NOT in it's Fighter role. Incirlik is just minutes from many
major
> > installation in the old Soviet Union when the bird is hitting Mach 2 and
> > doing a bomb toss. The next Salt treaty put an end to having them
there.

No. The F-4 stopped pulling alert nuclear alert duty in Incirlik because
they were replaced by F-16's. The 401st at Torrejon, to name one wing.

Pete

[~Nins~]

"Jay T. Beatty" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "~Nins~" > wrote in message
> news:kG2Ib.696416$Fm2.599288@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > "David W" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
> > > > > the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed these,
anyone
> > > > > care to fill me in or point me in the right direction please ?
> > > >
> > > > They'll just screw it up so let me.
> > >
> > > How nice of you to make the claims again.
> > > I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his unit trained at
> FT
> > Hood
> > > > with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an exercise of sorts. He
said
> > that
> > > > the Guards got a bit rambuntious and were getting mighty close to
the
> > 82nd
> > > > until an 82nd place a LAW round just to the left (or right) of a
> Guards
> > > > head. At that point, things were more than a bit intense and they
> > stopped
> > > > the exercise. I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit
> cocky
> > and
> > > > that 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever learned. Is
it
> > true?
> > > > You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it sounds like it
could
> > have
> > > > happened.
> > >
> > > Does this pass the smell test ?
> > > That live ammo was on an exercise ?
> > > Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?
> >
> > Was it something like this type of exercise, EDRE when the brigade is on
> > DRB1, and the troops do not know if it is practice or for real? Would
> live
> > ammo be used then? Is this what he is referring to, possibly?
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/82abn.htm
> > 10th paragraph down "An EDRE is nothing more than a practice deployment
> > which involves the DRF 1 Task Force and possibly the DRF 2 and DRF 3 as
> > well. When the EDRE is called, no one knows if it is practice or real.
The
> > units go through the entire alert, recall, and deployment procedures as
if
> i
> > t is real. "
> >
> No, I was involved in several EDREs when I was in the 82nd and you
always
> knew it as not for real when you got to the unit and they didn't hand out
> live ammo.

Ah ok, well that's good. The article didn't stipulate if live or not. I
got to thinking that if they didn't know it wasm't for real that things
could get really messy.

>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:36:41 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>No. The F-4 stopped pulling alert nuclear alert duty in Incirlik because
>they were replaced by F-16's. The 401st at Torrejon, to name one wing.
>
>Pete

Actually, the 401st stopped pulling nuclear alert at Incirlik as a
result of the war between the Greeks and Turks over Cyprus in 1976.
The alert airplanes were stood down, the deployed squadron flew out
and returned to Torrejon. Throughout Turkey all nuclear alert aircraft
were downloade and US weapons people remove strike enable plugs from
all the weapons.

Three weeks later, I led the 613th TFS redeployment back to Incirlik.
We were front row viewers of phase two of the Cyprus war which ran for
an additional week or so. Regular rotation of the 401st F-4 squadrons
resumed after that, but the nuclear alert was never restored.

It had nothing to do with the replacement by F-16s which didn't take
place until about five years later.


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

[Dave Thompson]

"~Nins~" > wrote in message
news:VL2Ib.691098$Tr4.1721457@attbi_s03...
>
> Actually, I'm finding several references on the net where training with
live
> ammo is indicated.
> http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2003/12/031204training.shtml
>

Infiltration courses under machine gun fire have been used since WW1. The
guns are on fixed mounts and cannot be depressed. The entire thrust of the
thread was that OKARNG and 82nd soldiers used live fire in opfor
engagements.

Two words: Total Bull****.

--
Dave Thompson
(The Other)

[Admin]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them
lined
> > > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment
(power
> > > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
> >
> > IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
> >
> > Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired
and
> > placed in storage in 1968.
>
> The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
> see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
> I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
> near, but not over, Plant 42.
>
> However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
> agreement with Tank Fixer.

Except you just disagreed with him in his assessment that the A-12 could not
possibly be there. You and I both know they were. What you saw was them
putting them into mothballs. I saw them prior to that just before they were
mothballed.

[Pete]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:36:41 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
> >No. The F-4 stopped pulling alert nuclear alert duty in Incirlik because
> >they were replaced by F-16's. The 401st at Torrejon, to name one wing.
> >
> >Pete
>
> Actually, the 401st stopped pulling nuclear alert at Incirlik as a
> result of the war between the Greeks and Turks over Cyprus in 1976.
> The alert airplanes were stood down, the deployed squadron flew out
> and returned to Torrejon. Throughout Turkey all nuclear alert aircraft
> were downloade and US weapons people remove strike enable plugs from
> all the weapons.
>
> Three weeks later, I led the 613th TFS redeployment back to Incirlik.
> We were front row viewers of phase two of the Cyprus war which ran for
> an additional week or so. Regular rotation of the 401st F-4 squadrons
> resumed after that, but the nuclear alert was never restored.
>
> It had nothing to do with the replacement by F-16s which didn't take
> place until about five years later.

I stand corrected. We started getting -16's at Torrejon in early 82. Summer
'83 and summer '84 were two deployments to Incirlik to certify the Wing on
conventional and nuc operations respectively. I had assumed (incorrectly, I
guess) that they also took over the nuc alert function.

Pete

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them
> lined
> > > > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment
> (power
> > > > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
> > >
> > > IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
> > >
> > > Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired
> and
> > > placed in storage in 1968.
> >
> > The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
> > see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
> > I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
> > near, but not over, Plant 42.
> >
> > However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
> > agreement with Tank Fixer.
>
> Except you just disagreed with him in his assessment that the A-12 could not
> possibly be there. You and I both know they were. What you saw was them
> putting them into mothballs. I saw them prior to that just before they were
> mothballed.
>


You claim to have seen them in the 1970's.

The remaining A12's were mothballed in 1968.

Which is it daryl?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Keeney]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article . net>,
> says...
> >
> > As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
> > done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have
been
> > involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by
near I
> > mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> > soldiers.
>
> I have, Ft Benning and other places.

Yea, gets your attention when you hear "bang, bang, bang" just like normal
then hear "bang, bang, bang, *ting*".

> And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers
> in a training exercise is absurd.
>
> I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range.

Sabot overhead can kill you, that shoe is bouncing around some where.

> They shut the place down for two days to investigate.

I've found individual live rounds during exercises on the ground and
ready boxes of belted blanks for the SAWs; police them up as the
situation permits. Ready live ammo would be a show stopper.

[redc1c4]

Admin wrote:
>
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:41 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > As for the A-12s, they were there in the 70s. I Physically saw them
> lined
> > > > up in a nice little row on the tarmak along with support equipment
> (power
> > > > units). What they were doing there, I have no idea.
> > >
> > > IIRC there were what a half dozen or so A-12 built in the early 60's ?
> > >
> > > Funny that you could see them in the 1970's when they had been retired
> and
> > > placed in storage in 1968.
> >
> > The "storage" was the ramp at AF Plant 42. They were pretty easy to
> > see, at least in later years, sprayed with some sort of white stuff.
> > I've saw the A-12s regularly. You could even snap photos while flying
> > near, but not over, Plant 42.
> >
> > However, I have nothing to add regarding the rest of this except
> > agreement with Tank Fixer.
>
> Except you just disagreed with him in his assessment that the A-12 could not
> possibly be there. You and I both know they were. What you saw was them
> putting them into mothballs. I saw them prior to that just before they were
> mothballed.

they were withdraw from service and mothballed in Palmdale CA, in 1968.
how could you see them in Nevada, in use, in the 1970's?

redc1c4
and you wonder why folks call you a bull****ter.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Jim Atkins]

Found the original designation for the Phantoms, according to Rene
Francillon's Putnam volume on the subject. In 1954 (18 Oct, to be precise)
the Navy issued a Letter of Intent to procure two long range twin engine
attack aircraft designated YAH-1. The Navy designator was changed to XF4H-1
in May 1955. The first AF version was externally identical to the F-4B and
was procured as the F-110A under a letter of intent dated 30 March 1962.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article . net>,
> > says...
> > >
> > > As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't any of you guys
> > > done a live fire exercise? Of course though those times that I have
> been
> > > involved in them, we were shooting at targets near other soldiers (by
> near I
> > > mean to say 100-200 meters away, but never any closer)but not at other
> > > soldiers.
> >
> > I have, Ft Benning and other places.
>
> Yea, gets your attention when you hear "bang, bang, bang" just like normal
> then hear "bang, bang, bang, *ting*".

Not had THAT pleasure.


>
> > And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW at other soldiers
> > in a training exercise is absurd.
> >
> > I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a range.
>
> Sabot overhead can kill you, that shoe is bouncing around some where.

We were a good 800 meters from the muzzle. The gunner got outside the
range fan on Table VIII and aquired a HMVEE providing power to our TOC, he
tried to engage with the coax.
Except he had main gun selected.


> > They shut the place down for two days to investigate.
>
> I've found individual live rounds during exercises on the ground and
> ready boxes of belted blanks for the SAWs; police them up as the
> situation permits. Ready live ammo would be a show stopper.

Most definatly.
Funny thing is we used to carry full load in Korea during FTX's.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> >So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation.
> >One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on.
>
> Please note that the FB-111 which SAC flew out of Pease and
> Plattsburgh was a different model entirely than the F-111A/D/E/F
> versions flown in TAC and USAFE. Larger wing, higher gross weight,
> different avionics.

Well aware of it.
Wasn't that wing a carry over from the F111B program for the USN ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[[email protected]]

Jay T. Beatty wrote:
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in
message
> k.net...
>> In article
. net>,
>> says...
>>>
>>> As much as I hate to say it, in Daryls defense haven't
any of you
>>> guys done a live fire exercise? Of course though those
times that
>>> I have been involved in them, we were shooting at
targets near
>>> other soldiers (by near I mean to say 100-200 meters
away, but
>>> never any closer)but not at other soldiers.
>>
>> I have, Ft Benning and other places.
>> And the idea that someone would delibetatly shoot a LAW
at other
>> soldiers in a training exercise is absurd.
>>
>> I have had sabot shot over my position by mistake at a
range.
>> They shut the place down for two days to investigate.
>>
> Yeah, the whole LAW thing is a bit out of control.
>
I've been through live fire exercises too but, we don't do
them like the Soviets did where the fire is sometimes
falling "danger close" or closer to the troops maneuvering.

I think I would have heard about it too because in the 1980s
my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
incident like that would have been as infamous as the one
where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at NTC
and got washed out.

I've heard of them taking tanks over cliffs at night, the
incredible sinking M113 and a few others that are pretty
strange but never heard of this incident with the 82nd and
the OKARNG.

Snark

[[email protected]]

~Nins~ wrote:
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in
message
> k.net...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> "David W" > wrote in
message
>>> ...
>>>> DM's LAW story, the A-12's @ Groom Lake,
>>>> the FB-4's in Turkey, P-38's in the 1950's ? I missed
these,
>>>> anyone care to fill me in or point me in the right
direction
>>>> please ?
>>>
>>> They'll just screw it up so let me.
>>
>> How nice of you to make the claims again.
>> I wouldn't want to mis-quote you.
>>
>>>
>>> I talked with an Oklahoma Nation Guard that said his
unit trained
>>> at FT Hood with the 82nd in the early 80s. It was an
exercise of
>>> sorts. He said that the Guards got a bit rambuntious
and were
>>> getting mighty close to the 82nd until an 82nd place a
LAW round
>>> just to the left (or right) of a Guards head. At that
point,
>>> things were more than a bit intense and they stopped the
exercise.
>>> I do know a few of the Guards were more than a bit cocky
and that
>>> 82nd troop probably did the best lesson they ever
learned. Is it
>>> true? You take it up with the OKGuards, not me. But it
sounds like
>>> it could have happened.
>>
>> Does this pass the smell test ?
>> That live ammo was on an exercise ?
>> Troops shooting at(near) troops on purpose ?
>
> Was it something like this type of exercise, EDRE when the
brigade is
> on DRB1, and the troops do not know if it is practice or
for real?
> Would live ammo be used then? Is this what he is
referring to,
> possibly?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/82abn.htm
> 10th paragraph down "An EDRE is nothing more than a
practice
> deployment which involves the DRF 1 Task Force and
possibly the DRF 2
> and DRF 3 as well. When the EDRE is called, no one knows
if it is
> practice or real. The units go through the entire alert,
recall, and
> deployment procedures as if i t is real. "
>
> <snip>

Nins, I was with the 82nds 2/505th INF and went on several
EDREs you know if it is real when you get your ammo, in
practice you get blanks, if it was real they pass out live
ammo. They don't break the seals on live ammo unless they
have to because the USAF won't transport it once the seals
are broken since there's no way to know what we've put in
each of the open cans.

Snark
--
Panthers on Point!

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:23:07 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Tank Fixer
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation.
>> >One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on.
>>
>> Please note that the FB-111 which SAC flew out of Pease and
>> Plattsburgh was a different model entirely than the F-111A/D/E/F
>> versions flown in TAC and USAFE. Larger wing, higher gross weight,
>> different avionics.
>
>Well aware of it.
>Wasn't that wing a carry over from the F111B program for the USN ?

No. If anything, the B model wing was smaller than A. Don't quote me
on that.

Never liked 'Varks. It took way too long for the airplane to become
operationally effective. Folks who drove them almost universally had a
"can't do" attitude. Few fighter pilots in the organization.


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

[John Hairell]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:27:50 GMT, "~Nins~" > wrote:

[lots of stuff snipped]
>
>Actually, I'm finding several references on the net where training with live
>ammo is indicated.
>http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2003/12/031204training.shtml
>

The US Army trains with live fire all the time, but that doesn't mean
they allow troops to shoot at each other. Any such incident would be
cause for an immediate halt to training and an investigation, and some
big ass-kicking.

The normal practice at infiltration/low crawl ranges is for the
machine guns to be bolted down in a frame which allows only a limited
amount of movement, usually in the horizontal plane. The MGs fire
down "alleys", and the only way to get hurt is by standing up in the
line of fire. Usually the only casualties on these kinds of ranges
are the ringing ears of the MG gunners, who get to fire all day from a
concrete bunker, and who then get to police up a ton of brass and
links. They may also get a burn or two from a red-hot MG barrel or
have a runaway autofiring MG. Been there, done that.

The idea that Army troops would shoot at each other in training
scenarios is ridiculous. The only thing I've ever heard of that has
even a modicum of similarity is of two BCT companies at Ft. Knox
shooting towards each other from one rifle range to another, and that
story was put out by a drill sergeant to impress raw boots - it's
almost certainly 99.99% B.S.

There are elaborate regulations and range rules about the use of live
fire. For instance one of those regulations has to do with the use of
armor-piercing ammo during exercises where armored vehicles are in
use, i.e. if you are going to shoot live ammo in a firepower exercise
and you have a bunch of troops buttoned up in APCs, for safety's sake
you don't use AP ammo in case a round goes into an APC by mistake.
That doesn't mean that anyone would shoot conventional ammo at an APC
on purpose.

I've worked both range airspace and at range controls, and anytime
there was a problem with where fire was landing, or there were range
incusions, training ops were immediately stopped. Ops were even
stopped when fire wasn't close but troops on the ground perceived that
it was, i.e. the fire was within legal parameters but somebody got
nervous because of their perceptions.

There have been training accidents where people got hurt or killed by
live fire. I was in the cockpit of a Chinook which was narrowly
missed by a live TOW missile headed for a tank hulk. Made my whole
day...

John Hairell )

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:23:07 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:42 GMT, Tank Fixer
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >So did the F-100, F-84 and F-104 wings. None had any silly FB designation.
> >> >One aircraft got that, the FB-111 Only for the ones SAC took on.
> >>
> >> Please note that the FB-111 which SAC flew out of Pease and
> >> Plattsburgh was a different model entirely than the F-111A/D/E/F
> >> versions flown in TAC and USAFE. Larger wing, higher gross weight,
> >> different avionics.
> >
> >Well aware of it.
> >Wasn't that wing a carry over from the F111B program for the USN ?
>
> No. If anything, the B model wing was smaller than A. Don't quote me
> on that.

OK, it was something I'd remembered reading. Or mis-remembered.

> Never liked 'Varks. It took way too long for the airplane to become
> operationally effective. Folks who drove them almost universally had a
> "can't do" attitude. Few fighter pilots in the organization.

Not a good attitude for a combat flyer, IMHO


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article . net>,
says...
>
> I think I would have heard about it too because in the 1980s
> my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
> incident like that would have been as infamous as the one
> where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at NTC
> and got washed out.

It wasn't just a CP tent !

It was the whole DAMN UMCP

GRmprrrr

Morons from Montana.
My Det, G Troop's maintenance section and the maintenance guys from a
Canadian recon troop were attached to assist them.

I was NOT overjoyed to see the same warrant office sitting across the
table from me in November at the JRTC D540.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Ron]

>>Well aware of it.
>>Wasn't that wing a carry over from the F111B program for the USN ?
>
>No. If anything, the B model wing was smaller than A. Don't quote me
>on that.

Actually I think the FB-111 and the F-111B did share the same wing, they both
had a wingspan of 70.

>Never liked 'Varks. It took way too long for the airplane to become
>operationally effective. Folks who drove them almost universally had a
>"can't do" attitude. Few fighter pilots in the organization.

Oh boy if Kurt Todoroff sees this.... :)


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[[email protected]]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article
. net>,
> says...
>>
>> I think I would have heard about it too because in the
1980s
>> my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
>> incident like that would have been as infamous as the one
>> where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at
NTC
>> and got washed out.
>
> It wasn't just a CP tent !
>
> It was the whole DAMN UMCP
>
> GRmprrrr
>
> Morons from Montana.
> My Det, G Troop's maintenance section and the maintenance
guys from a
> Canadian recon troop were attached to assist them.
>
> I was NOT overjoyed to see the same warrant office sitting
across the
> table from me in November at the JRTC D540.


LOL! That makes it even funnier. BTW, did anyone remind
the WO not to put anything in a dry wash this time?

Snark

[Tank Fixer]

In article . net>,
says...
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article
> . net>,
> > says...
> >>
> >> I think I would have heard about it too because in the
> 1980s
> >> my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
> >> incident like that would have been as infamous as the one
> >> where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at
> NTC
> >> and got washed out.
> >
> > It wasn't just a CP tent !
> >
> > It was the whole DAMN UMCP
> >
> > GRmprrrr
> >
> > Morons from Montana.
> > My Det, G Troop's maintenance section and the maintenance
> guys from a
> > Canadian recon troop were attached to assist them.
> >
> > I was NOT overjoyed to see the same warrant office sitting
> across the
> > table from me in November at the JRTC D540.
>
>
> LOL! That makes it even funnier. BTW, did anyone remind
> the WO not to put anything in a dry wash this time?

I don't think he recognized me.
He's witha truck company now.
But,
He's in even more trouble than that.

I work in the S2/S3 shop now.......

I think we need him to go "recon" down ---> that-away->



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[[email protected]]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article
. net>,
> says...
>> Tank Fixer wrote:
>>> In article
>> . net>,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> I think I would have heard about it too because in the
>> 1980s
>>>> my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
>>>> incident like that would have been as infamous as the
one
>>>> where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at
>> NTC
>>>> and got washed out.
>>>
>>> It wasn't just a CP tent !
>>>
>>> It was the whole DAMN UMCP
>>>
>>> GRmprrrr
>>>
>>> Morons from Montana.
>>> My Det, G Troop's maintenance section and the
maintenance
>> guys from a
>>> Canadian recon troop were attached to assist them.
>>>
>>> I was NOT overjoyed to see the same warrant office
sitting across
>>> the table from me in November at the JRTC D540.
>>
>>
>> LOL! That makes it even funnier. BTW, did anyone remind
>> the WO not to put anything in a dry wash this time?
>
> I don't think he recognized me.
> He's witha truck company now.
> But,
> He's in even more trouble than that.
>
> I work in the S2/S3 shop now.......
>
> I think we need him to go "recon" down ---> that-away->

The poor truckers!

Snark

[Tank Fixer]

In article .net>,
says...
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article
> . net>,
> > says...
> >> Tank Fixer wrote:
> >>> In article
> >> . net>,
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I would have heard about it too because in the
> >> 1980s
> >>>> my cousin CPT Malcolm Quon was stationed there and an
> >>>> incident like that would have been as infamous as the
> one
> >>>> where some dufus put a CP tent up in a dry river bed at
> >> NTC
> >>>> and got washed out.
> >>>
> >>> It wasn't just a CP tent !
> >>>
> >>> It was the whole DAMN UMCP
> >>>
> >>> GRmprrrr
> >>>
> >>> Morons from Montana.
> >>> My Det, G Troop's maintenance section and the
> maintenance
> >> guys from a
> >>> Canadian recon troop were attached to assist them.
> >>>
> >>> I was NOT overjoyed to see the same warrant office
> sitting across
> >>> the table from me in November at the JRTC D540.
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! That makes it even funnier. BTW, did anyone remind
> >> the WO not to put anything in a dry wash this time?
> >
> > I don't think he recognized me.
> > He's witha truck company now.
> > But,
> > He's in even more trouble than that.
> >
> > I work in the S2/S3 shop now.......
> >
> > I think we need him to go "recon" down ---> that-away->
>
> The poor truckers!

Not if I can help it. I'm sure we cna find a mission to keep him busy.
Maybe running the rail yard at Pinion Canyon or something.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:00:06 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:

>Not if I can help it. I'm sure we cna find a mission to keep him busy.
>Maybe running the rail yard at Pinion Canyon or something.
>

Put him in an eagle nest on the Hogback for a week counting antelope.

Been there, done that.

Ed, Former ALO, 2 Bde/4 ID.


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:00:06 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> >Not if I can help it. I'm sure we cna find a mission to keep him busy.
> >Maybe running the rail yard at Pinion Canyon or something.
> >
>
> Put him in an eagle nest on the Hogback for a week counting antelope.
>

We'll keep that in mind.

If we get there, bets are they cancel the annual training and have in
state again. The seperate infantry brigade that is supposed to be going
already has two of it's line battalions deployed....

> Been there, done that.
>
> Ed, Former ALO, 2 Bde/4 ID.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.