THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES

[ArtKramr]

Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges


Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have cut
transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took only
a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks. We
had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open) and
his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5 aircraft
over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost. A
lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
die.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jim Doyle]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
>
>
> Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you
have cut
> transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took
only
> a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks.
We
> had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of
February
> 1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over
the
> target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open)
and
> his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5
aircraft
> over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were
lost
> but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews
lost. A
> lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time
to
> die.
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D

[Ragnar]

Were the bridges successfully interdicted?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> wrote:

>Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
>that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
>fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>
>Jim D
>

Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.

The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
hazardous.

The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.

Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.

"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
with a gun bigger than your own.


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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
> >that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
> >
> >Jim D
> >
>
> Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
> are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
> Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
> experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
> railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
> bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.
>
>

617 Squadron took some of their heaviest losses attacking bridges
in Germany, it wasnt until they got the Tallboy and GrandSlam
weapons that they got weapons that could reliably knock
down a bridge as they could do it with a near miss

Keith

[Jim Doyle]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
> like
> > >that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
> > >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
> > >
> > >Jim D
> > >
> >
> > Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
> > are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
> > Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
> > experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
> > railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
> > bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.
> >
> >
>
> 617 Squadron took some of their heaviest losses attacking bridges
> in Germany, it wasnt until they got the Tallboy and GrandSlam
> weapons that they got weapons that could reliably knock
> down a bridge as they could do it with a near miss
>
> Keith
>

Is this the same (or similar) as an airfield attack? To crater a runway must
be as difficult as taking out a bridge by virtue of their shape and size
(although granted, bridges are considerably shorter), plus I guess an
airfield is likely to have the same AA protection as a bridge, if not
substantially more.
I seem to remember the Black Buck Vulcans used a optimum angle of 30deg to
attack Stanley's runway for the highest probability of a centreline hit. Is
this the same for a bridge target?

Jim

[Jim Doyle]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
> >that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
> >
> >Jim D
> >
>
> Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
> are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
> Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
> experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
> railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
> bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.
>
> The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
> hazardous.
>
> The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
> LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.
>
> Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.
>
> "Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
> with a gun bigger than your own.

I guess that would be pretty stupid! Surely there must've been some
counter-AA tactics used by the allies other than hoping to take them out
with the target?

In Vietnam was this role taken-up by the Weasel variants? Or did AA prove to
hard/costly to strike specifically?

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Is this the same (or similar) as an airfield attack? To crater a runway
must
> be as difficult as taking out a bridge by virtue of their shape and size
> (although granted, bridges are considerably shorter), plus I guess an
> airfield is likely to have the same AA protection as a bridge, if not
> substantially more.

I suspect it depends on the airfield/bridge

ISTR that the problem with major bridges like the Bielefeld
Viaducts was that you needed a direct hit with at least a
2000lb bomb and this was hard to achieve


> I seem to remember the Black Buck Vulcans used a optimum angle of 30deg to
> attack Stanley's runway for the highest probability of a centreline hit.
Is
> this the same for a bridge target?

I think so and the difference with the Tallboys was that near miss would
collapse
the piers holding up the bridge which was much more destructive than
knocking down one of the spans.

Keith

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:21:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Did they soften-up the AA with
>> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>> >
>> >Jim D
>> >
>> Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.
>>
>> "Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
>> with a gun bigger than your own.
>
>I guess that would be pretty stupid! Surely there must've been some
>counter-AA tactics used by the allies other than hoping to take them out
>with the target?
>
>In Vietnam was this role taken-up by the Weasel variants? Or did AA prove to
>hard/costly to strike specifically?

The Weasel variants (F-100F, F-105F, F-105G and only briefly F-4C
Weasel) in Vietnam were radar detection systems and armed typically
with ARMs. While not reluctant to attack SAM sites, they were a
specialized system in short supply.

The Weasel escorts usually got the job of killing the SAM site with
CBU, rockets or plain iron bombs.

Flak suppression was a standard mission. It could be done by one
member in a flight of four, loaded with CBU being given the task or a
flight of four within a strike package of four or five flights having
the job. An area munition like CBU-24, 52 or 58 was very effective at
flak suppression. While it wouldn't insure a "gun kill" it was very
good at "gunner kill."

Defense suppression is always part of the task and ignoring the guns
is usually not a good tactic.



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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
> >that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
> >
> >Jim D
> >
>
> Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
> are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
> Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
> experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
> railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
> bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.

The major contribution of the Azon guided bomb during WWII was its use
against bridges in the CBI theater; ISTR reading where they were used to
drop some 27 bridges in that region during the last year of the war. It
still took some 500 (IIRC) total Azons to do that, however. I believe B-24's
were the aircraft conducting that particular campaign.

Brooks

>
> The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
> hazardous.
>
> The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
> LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.
>
> Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.
>
> "Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
> with a gun bigger than your own.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: "Jim Doyle"
>Date: 2/2/04 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
>>
>>
>> Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you
>have cut
>> transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took
>only
>> a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks.
>We
>> had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of
>February
>> 1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over
>the
>> target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open)
>and
>> his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5
>aircraft
>> over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were
>lost
>> but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews
>lost. A
>> lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time
>to
>> die.
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
>that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
>fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>
>Jim D
>
>

Some bridges had to be taken out no matter the the cost. This bridge was used
to resupply German forces attacking Omah beach. Our losses were the price we
paid to protect the attacking infantry. Go to my website and see, "DEATH OF A
BRIDGE". Look at the two photos carefully. Very carefuly Then read the caption
at the bottom of the page. Results like this are the sort of attacks I lived
for. Made my day.


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]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 1:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> wrote:
>
>>Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
>>that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
>>fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>>
>>Jim D
>>
>
>Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
>are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
>Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
>experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
>railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
>bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.
>
>The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
>hazardous.
>
>The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
>LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.
>
>Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.
>
>"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
>with a gun bigger than your own.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

If the bridge was weak enough they would send in P-47's with 500 pounders siung
under their wings. They did a good job but took horrible losses. Often worse
than we did. Poor brave *******s.



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]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 2/2/04 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
>like
>> >that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
>> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>> >
>> >Jim D
>> >
>>
>> Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
>> are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
>> Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
>> experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
>> railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
>> bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.
>>
>>
>
>617 Squadron took some of their heaviest losses attacking bridges
>in Germany, it wasnt until they got the Tallboy and GrandSlam
>weapons that they got weapons that could reliably knock
>down a bridge as they could do it with a near miss
>
>Keith
>
>
Taking out the bridges is easy. It is getting away alive that is tough.


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]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 4:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:21:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Did they soften-up the AA with
>>> >fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?
>>> >
>>> >Jim D
>>> >
>>> Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.
>>>
>>> "Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
>>> with a gun bigger than your own.
>>
>>I guess that would be pretty stupid! Surely there must've been some
>>counter-AA tactics used by the allies other than hoping to take them out
>>with the target?
>>
>>In Vietnam was this role taken-up by the Weasel variants? Or did AA prove to
>>hard/costly to strike specifically?
>
>The Weasel variants (F-100F, F-105F, F-105G and only briefly F-4C
>Weasel) in Vietnam were radar detection systems and armed typically
>with ARMs. While not reluctant to attack SAM sites, they were a
>specialized system in short supply.
>
>The Weasel escorts usually got the job of killing the SAM site with
>CBU, rockets or plain iron bombs.
>
>Flak suppression was a standard mission. It could be done by one
>member in a flight of four, loaded with CBU being given the task or a
>flight of four within a strike package of four or five flights having
>the job. An area munition like CBU-24, 52 or 58 was very effective at
>flak suppression. While it wouldn't insure a "gun kill" it was very
>good at "gunner kill."
>
>Defense suppression is always part of the task and ignoring the guns
>is usually not a good tactic.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Did they have flak towers in Nam?




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

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
>
>
>Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have cut
>transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took only
>a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks. We
>had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
>1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
>target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open) and
>his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5 aircraft
>over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
>but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost. A
>lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
>die.
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Art,

It must have been these tough nuts to crack that were to motivation for
the weapons system I'm working on now. The AGM-130 and GBU-15 are
basically a 2000 lb low drag iron bomb with a daylight TV or IR TV video
seeker head up front and a control package, television transmitter, and
BIG fins on the back. The AGM-130 also has a 400lb rocket booster to
increase its range. These are both controlled by AXQ-14 data link pods
carried by F-15E's

I just saw some footage today of these things doing their job on
Yugoslav bridges. They are accurate, and controllable enough to hit
either the bridge arches, beams, or piers exactly where you want to hit
them. There is a pride in working on these things knowing that that 1)
they are such an effective weapon and 2) they do the job without putting
air crews in such terrible danger as Art faced.

There are some things you just can't do with laser or GPS guided
weapons. Much of the world where bad people live has heavy cloud cover
and too many SAMS to safely lase targets. GPS guided bombs hit things
from the top and only the top. I just saw the proof of how effective it
is to hit parts of bridges from the side. Sometimes the bad guys hide
high value targets under overpases. I think the dictator of Yugoslavia
gave up because they put a 2000lb bomb into the LEFT patio door of an
apartment he frequently visited.

I remember the sacrifices it took to hit the tough targets. One of the
best parts of my job is to tell people how many american air crews these
things save. All the while whe're building these things in the old
Norden bombsight factory:-). Start out good, get better.

--
Dana Miller

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: Dana Miller
>Date: 2/2/04 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
>>
>>
>>Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have
>cut
>>transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took
>only
>>a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks.
>We
>>had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
>>1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
>>target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open)
>and
>>his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5
>aircraft
>>over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
>>but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost.
>A
>>lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
>>die.
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Art,
>
>It must have been these tough nuts to crack that were to motivation for
>the weapons system I'm working on now. The AGM-130 and GBU-15 are
>basically a 2000 lb low drag iron bomb with a daylight TV or IR TV video
>seeker head up front and a control package, television transmitter, and
>BIG fins on the back. The AGM-130 also has a 400lb rocket booster to
>increase its range. These are both controlled by AXQ-14 data link pods
>carried by F-15E's
>
>I just saw some footage today of these things doing their job on
>Yugoslav bridges. They are accurate, and controllable enough to hit
>either the bridge arches, beams, or piers exactly where you want to hit
>them. There is a pride in working on these things knowing that that 1)
>they are such an effective weapon and 2) they do the job without putting
>air crews in such terrible danger as Art faced.
>
>There are some things you just can't do with laser or GPS guided
>weapons. Much of the world where bad people live has heavy cloud cover
>and too many SAMS to safely lase targets. GPS guided bombs hit things
>from the top and only the top. I just saw the proof of how effective it
>is to hit parts of bridges from the side. Sometimes the bad guys hide
>high value targets under overpases. I think the dictator of Yugoslavia
>gave up because they put a 2000lb bomb into the LEFT patio door of an
>apartment he frequently visited.
>
>I remember the sacrifices it took to hit the tough targets. One of the
>best parts of my job is to tell people how many american air crews these
>things save. All the while whe're building these things in the old
>Norden bombsight factory:-). Start out good, get better.
>
>--
>Dana Miller


Wish we had that stuff back then. A lot of good men would still be with us.


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

[Buzzer]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:23:36 GMT, Dana Miller
> wrote:

>It must have been these tough nuts to crack that were to motivation for
>the weapons system I'm working on now. The AGM-130 and GBU-15 are
>basically a 2000 lb low drag iron bomb with a daylight TV or IR TV video
>seeker head up front and a control package, television transmitter, and
>BIG fins on the back. The AGM-130 also has a 400lb rocket booster to
>increase its range. These are both controlled by AXQ-14 data link pods
>carried by F-15E's

Still working on daylight TV guided bombs? They seemed to work pretty
good on F-4Ds at Ubon, Thailand about 37 years ago.<G>

>I just saw some footage today of these things doing their job on
>Yugoslav bridges. They are accurate, and controllable enough to hit
>either the bridge arches, beams, or piers exactly where you want to hit
>them. There is a pride in working on these things knowing that that 1)
>they are such an effective weapon and 2) they do the job without putting
>air crews in such terrible danger as Art faced.
>
>There are some things you just can't do with laser or GPS guided
>weapons. Much of the world where bad people live has heavy cloud cover
>and too many SAMS to safely lase targets. GPS guided bombs hit things
>from the top and only the top. I just saw the proof of how effective it
>is to hit parts of bridges from the side. Sometimes the bad guys hide
>high value targets under overpases. I think the dictator of Yugoslavia
>gave up because they put a 2000lb bomb into the LEFT patio door of an
>apartment he frequently visited.
>
>I remember the sacrifices it took to hit the tough targets. One of the
>best parts of my job is to tell people how many american air crews these
>things save. All the while whe're building these things in the old
>Norden bombsight factory:-). Start out good, get better.

[Eunometic]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
> >From: Dana Miller
> >Date: 2/2/04 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
> >>
SNIP
> >
> >There are some things you just can't do with laser or GPS guided
> >weapons. Much of the world where bad people live has heavy cloud cover
> >and too many SAMS to safely lase targets. GPS guided bombs hit things
> >from the top and only the top. I just saw the proof of how effective it
> >is to hit parts of bridges from the side. Sometimes the bad guys hide
> >high value targets under overpases. I think the dictator of Yugoslavia
> >gave up because they put a 2000lb bomb into the LEFT patio door of an
> >apartment he frequently visited.
> >
> >I remember the sacrifices it took to hit the tough targets. One of the
> >best parts of my job is to tell people how many american air crews these
> >things save. All the while whe're building these things in the old
> >Norden bombsight factory:-). Start out good, get better.
> >
> >--
> >Dana Miller
>
>
> Wish we had that stuff back then. A lot of good men would still be with us.
>

You did have something similar. The USAF had AZON and used it and I
think RAZON as well. Radio controlled bombs Designed to hit bridges.
They worked similarly to the Luftwaffe's Fritz X except that AZON
stood for azimuth only and RAZON as range and azimuth only.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: (Eunometic)
>Date: 2/3/04 5:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>> >From: Dana Miller
>> >Date: 2/2/04 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> > (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges
>> >>
>SNIP
>> >
>> >There are some things you just can't do with laser or GPS guided
>> >weapons. Much of the world where bad people live has heavy cloud cover
>> >and too many SAMS to safely lase targets. GPS guided bombs hit things
>> >from the top and only the top. I just saw the proof of how effective it
>> >is to hit parts of bridges from the side. Sometimes the bad guys hide
>> >high value targets under overpases. I think the dictator of Yugoslavia
>> >gave up because they put a 2000lb bomb into the LEFT patio door of an
>> >apartment he frequently visited.
>> >
>> >I remember the sacrifices it took to hit the tough targets. One of the
>> >best parts of my job is to tell people how many american air crews these
>> >things save. All the while whe're building these things in the old
>> >Norden bombsight factory:-). Start out good, get better.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Dana Miller
>>
>>
>> Wish we had that stuff back then. A lot of good men would still be with us.
>>
>
>You did have something similar. The USAF had AZON and used it and I
>think RAZON as well. Radio controlled bombs Designed to hit bridges.
>They worked similarly to the Luftwaffe's Fritz X except that AZON
>stood for azimuth only and RAZON as range and azimuth only.


Never even saw one. (sigh)


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 03 Feb 2004 04:02:17 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>
>>Flak suppression was a standard mission. It could be done by one
>>member in a flight of four, loaded with CBU being given the task or a
>>flight of four within a strike package of four or five flights having
>>the job. An area munition like CBU-24, 52 or 58 was very effective at
>>flak suppression. While it wouldn't insure a "gun kill" it was very
>>good at "gunner kill."
>>
>>Defense suppression is always part of the task and ignoring the guns
>>is usually not a good tactic.
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>
>Did they have flak towers in Nam?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

No flak towers. They had an integrated air defense system with radar
early warning, SA-2 SAMs, ground radar controlled interceptors with
guns and missiles, and a range of guns from 12.7/14.5 automatic
weapons through 23mm high rate cannon, 37/57mm radar and optically
guided AAA and 85mm/100mm big guns.

No flak towers, but lots of well coordinated flak.



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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/3/04 6:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 03 Feb 2004 04:02:17 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>
>>>Flak suppression was a standard mission. It could be done by one
>>>member in a flight of four, loaded with CBU being given the task or a
>>>flight of four within a strike package of four or five flights having
>>>the job. An area munition like CBU-24, 52 or 58 was very effective at
>>>flak suppression. While it wouldn't insure a "gun kill" it was very
>>>good at "gunner kill."
>>>
>>>Defense suppression is always part of the task and ignoring the guns
>>>is usually not a good tactic.
>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus
>>
>>Did they have flak towers in Nam?
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>No flak towers. They had an integrated air defense system with radar
>early warning, SA-2 SAMs, ground radar controlled interceptors with
>guns and missiles, and a range of guns from 12.7/14.5 automatic
>weapons through 23mm high rate cannon, 37/57mm radar and optically
>guided AAA and 85mm/100mm big guns.
>
>No flak towers, but lots of well coordinated flak.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Sounds worse than we had it. Most of the time we just had 88's to worry about.
Then there were those days when I thought it might be a good idea to get a
change of MOS to PX officer. Fat chance.(grin)




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

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Did they have flak towers in Nam?

>No flak towers. They had an integrated air defense system with radar
>early warning, SA-2 SAMs, ground radar controlled interceptors with
>guns and missiles, and a range of guns from 12.7/14.5 automatic
>weapons through 23mm high rate cannon, 37/57mm radar and optically
>guided AAA and 85mm/100mm big guns.

>No flak towers, but lots of well coordinated flak.

You sure know how to bring out the best in folks and thanks to you,
I've been enjoying Kramer's contributions once again. My hat's off
to ya, Ed!


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

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
>with a gun bigger than your own.

Just cuirous, how do divebombers get around this rule? (e.g: Stukas
and SBD Dauntlesses in WW2, Skyraiders in Southeast Asia and
Warthogs in Southwest Asia).

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

[The CO]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
> >with a gun bigger than your own.
>
> Just cuirous, how do divebombers get around this rule? (e.g: Stukas
> and SBD Dauntlesses in WW2, Skyraiders in Southeast Asia and
> Warthogs in Southwest Asia).

I believe courage is the major factor.

The CO

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:28:54 +1030, "The CO" >
wrote:

>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>> >Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> >"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
>> >with a gun bigger than your own.
>>
>> Just cuirous, how do divebombers get around this rule? (e.g: Stukas
>> and SBD Dauntlesses in WW2, Skyraiders in Southeast Asia and
>> Warthogs in Southwest Asia).
>
>I believe courage is the major factor.
>
>The CO

Courage is good and foolishness ranks a close second. Luck helps as
well. Throw in a bit of "big sky" theory and you get to do it
occasionally.

Virtually all tactical aircraft in SEA were "dive bombers". Skyraiders
worked close and were decidedly slow. They didn't regularly work big
gun areas, but occasionally in the Sandy (SAR) role were forced to.

I recount in When Thunder Rolled, an attack in which the 85mm
projectiles could be seen in flight, coming straight up the dive bomb
pass like glowing red footballs. There were also instances of losing
sight of the remainder of a tactical spread formation because of so
much air bursting flak between us.

Bottom line is that a stable, large caliber, high-rate-of-fire ground
gun is more likely to be successful at hitting its target than a
mobile, smaller caliber, fast-mover strafing. Change the weapon to a
string of half a dozen mk-82s or better yet, a quartet of CBU-52 and
the odds shift in favor of the airplane.


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

[Mike Marron]

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

>>>Just cuirous, how do divebombers get around this rule? (e.g: Stukas
>>>and SBD Dauntlesses in WW2, Skyraiders in Southeast Asia and
>>>Warthogs in Southwest Asia).

>>I believe courage is the major factor.

>>The CO

>Courage is good and foolishness ranks a close second. Luck helps as
>well. Throw in a bit of "big sky" theory and you get to do it
>occasionally.

Courage, foolishness, luck, big sky theory and perhaps temporary
insanity? Watching a bud go down in a ball of flames one too many
times and I could understand how that would be enough to flip a switch
and cause the (previously sane) warrior to instantly make peace with
the gods. Then tighten up his grip on the stick and roll in through a
murderous hail of gunfire -- death be damned!

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>
>
>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>>The CO" > wrote:
>>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
>>>>Just cuirous, how do divebombers get around this rule? (e.g: Stukas
>>>>and SBD Dauntlesses in WW2, Skyraiders in Southeast Asia and
>>>>Warthogs in Southwest Asia).
>
>>>I believe courage is the major factor.
>
>>>The CO
>
>>Courage is good and foolishness ranks a close second. Luck helps as
>>well. Throw in a bit of "big sky" theory and you get to do it
>>occasionally.
>
>Courage, foolishness, luck, big sky theory and perhaps temporary
>insanity? Watching a bud go down in a ball of flames one too many
>times and I could understand how that would be enough to flip a switch
>and cause the (previously sane) warrior to instantly make peace with
>the gods. Then tighten up his grip on the stick and roll in through a
>murderous hail of gunfire -- death be damned!
>
You have been watching too many low budget movies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>From: Mike Marron wrote:

>>Courage, foolishness, luck, big sky theory and perhaps temporary
>>insanity? Watching a bud go down in a ball of flames one too many
>>times and I could understand how that would be enough to flip a switch
>>and cause the (previously sane) warrior to instantly make peace with
>>the gods. Then tighten up his grip on the stick and roll in through a
>>murderous hail of gunfire -- death be damned!

>You have been watching too many low budget movies.

Don't take my word for it (frankly Scarlett...) Drop Ed or any other
pilot who flew in combat a private email and ask them just how
"far-fetched" the scenario above is....

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>From: Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Courage, foolishness, luck, big sky theory and perhaps temporary
>>>insanity? Watching a bud go down in a ball of flames one too many
>>>times and I could understand how that would be enough to flip a switch
>>>and cause the (previously sane) warrior to instantly make peace with
>>>the gods. Then tighten up his grip on the stick and roll in through a
>>>murderous hail of gunfire -- death be damned!
>
>>You have been watching too many low budget movies.
>
>Don't take my word for it (frankly Scarlett...) Drop Ed or any other
>pilot who flew in combat a private email and ask them just how
>"far-fetched" the scenario above is....
>

I am quite sure they can speak for themselves.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WaltBJ]

Thing about a fighter bomber is its going lots faster than a B26
Marauder and it's not flying straight and level. AMAF the rule was
keep moving and never get predictable. it took a while to wrok out
just how to flt a snaky erratic diving approach to the release point,
never staying in one attitude for more than say 4 seconds max while
usually staying loaded up around 4 G but it could be done, and still
hit the target. On a one pass haul ass speed and motion was a bit
easier. Getting in close for troop support one had to really move it
around because the enemy doctrine was everybody shoot at the fighters.
Strafinf a gun wasn' really a good idea because the way the ballistics
works he's got two chances at you and you got one at him - he'll hit
you with the bullet falling through your flight path and very soon as
you close in it'll be rising up through the flight path. Weapon of
choice back then was the CBU52 - full of grapefruit-sized bomblets.
The twin 23 was very ubiquitous - and could put up a lot of shells
quickly. Didn't shoot very high but it was very mobile and they had a
ton of them. We had one the Army gave us there at DaNang. It was all
too easy to track the planes on downwind as they flew past. All our
FNG new crews got to try tracking the planes to get the point of
jinking across. FWIW in protected areas both north and south the flak
could look like the naval scenes from 'The Battle for Okinawa' where
the USN is hosing Kamikazes - except this was from the other side. My
WingCO at Bitburg had the right idea - a thousand mile standoff
missile.
Walt BJ

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>Some bridges had to be taken out no matter the the cost. This bridge was used
>to resupply German forces attacking Omah beach. Our losses were the price we
>paid to protect the attacking infantry. Go to my website and see, "DEATH OF A
>BRIDGE". Look at the two photos carefully. Very carefuly Then read the caption
>at the bottom of the page. Results like this are the sort of attacks I lived
>for. Made my day.
>
Art,

How much did the Air Corps briefers tell you about the purpose behind
the selection of a particular target? Did most aircrew members have a
good understanding of target selection so that most/all targets were
chosen for obvious reasons? Did all the aircrew go to the pre-flight
breif or just pilots/BNs? Different briefs for different crew positions?

Ed, et al,

I agreed with the 1000 mile standoff. I sometimes roll around different
alternatives of how we could get the AGM-130 to fly to the full range of
the weapon data link. In Bosinia, I hear that a major problem was that
many targets were close to national borders and the ROE prevented
release of the weapons until closer than was preferred.

I like to understand how the weapons I work on are employed and how they
impact the battle. By taking out a bridge or command center you take
the enemies ability to put troops/equipment at the right place at the
right time.

--
Dana Miller

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES
>From: Dana Miller
>Date: 2/4/04 7:51 PM

>How much did the Air Corps briefers tell you about the purpose behind
>the selection of a particular target? Did most aircrew members have a
>good understanding of target selection so that most/all targets were
>chosen for obvious reasons? Did all the aircrew go to the pre-flight
>breif or just pilots/BNs? Different briefs for different crew positions?
>
>Ed, et al,
>

They told us only what we had to know,sometimes almost nothing, Some things we
only learned after the mission such as the time we hit the bridge at Arnhem.
They were careful not to give us information of use to the enemy in case we
were shot down and captured. In most cases what we knew, so did the enemy.

Pre flight breifings included only pilots, copilots and bombardier navigators.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 03:51:01 GMT, Dana Miller
> wrote:

>How much did the Air Corps briefers tell you about the purpose behind
>the selection of a particular target? Did most aircrew members have a
>good understanding of target selection so that most/all targets were
>chosen for obvious reasons? Did all the aircrew go to the pre-flight
>breif or just pilots/BNs? Different briefs for different crew positions?
>
>Ed, et al,
>
In the North Vietnam campaigns, the ROE were spelled out, so there was
an overall framework for operations. Before you flew your first
mission, you had to read and pass a test on the ROE. Big issue was
prohibited areas and buffer zones, such as the China border. Also
questions of allowable targets--no dams, dikes, hospitals, schools,
etc. At some periods no airfields or SAM sites until they fired. That
changed later in the war.

Large package briefings for Pack VI strikes has all tactical aircrews
present--F-4, F-105 with nosegunners and back-seaters. The EB-66,
EC-121, tankers, recce briefed elsewhere. Several bases participated
so there were briefings and timing sequences involved at all
locations.

Typically, you assembled half an hour before mass brief to review
maps, prepare line-up cards, get code-words for the day. Mass brief
covered weather, intel, operations sequence, SAR plan. Then break up
into four-ship flight briefing by flight lead for tactics,
ingress/egress formations, emergency handling. Finally break to
individual airplane crew where front and back seater coordinate their
duties.

Targets were pretty familiar and the objectives were obvious. Cut
railroad bridges, interdict supplies, destroy POL, etc. No great
strategies involved. Small area, limited number of targets.



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