Rumsfeld and flying

[Rojo2G]

I have heard Rumsfeld (yes, that guy) was a Navy pilot. What did he fly and
when was it?
Thanks

[Ed Rasimus]

On 05 Mar 2004 22:58:52 GMT, (Rojo2G) wrote:

>I have heard Rumsfeld (yes, that guy) was a Navy pilot. What did he fly and
>when was it?
>Thanks

Why is Google so difficult?

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/donald-rumsfeld/
http://www.ustdrc.gov/members/rumsfeld.html


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

[Mike Marron]

> Ed Rasimus

>Why is Google so difficult?

You mentioned him in "When Thunder Rolled."


AUTOCOLLIMATOR


The silence is defeaning.

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On 05 Mar 2004 22:58:52 GMT, (Rojo2G) wrote:
>
> >I have heard Rumsfeld (yes, that guy) was a Navy pilot. What did he fly and
> >when was it?
> >Thanks
>
> Why is Google so difficult?
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
> http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/donald-rumsfeld/
> http://www.ustdrc.gov/members/rumsfeld.html
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8


And indeed that answers that he was a Naval Aviator and when. To answer
the second part he flew S2F Trackers aka Stoofs.
Pugs

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On 05 Mar 2004 22:58:52 GMT, (Rojo2G) wrote:
>
> >I have heard Rumsfeld (yes, that guy) was a Navy pilot. What did he fly and
> >when was it?
> >Thanks
>
> Why is Google so difficult?
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
> http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/donald-rumsfeld/
> http://www.ustdrc.gov/members/rumsfeld.html
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

None of which say what he flew. Fortunately, googling the NGs is more useful:

From: Yofuri )
Subject: Re: Sec. Rumsfeld - a Navy pilot?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military.naval
Date: 2003-04-12 10:30:13 PST


S2F Stoofs

"dano" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
>
> Someone pointed out that Sec. Rumsfeld served 3 years as a Navy pilot. I
> searched for a good 10 minutes (a week in internet years) and could not find
> out what aircraft he flew.
>
> Anyone have better search skills than me or otherwise know?
>
> He served AD from 54-57.
>
> Dano

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:17:09 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>> Ed Rasimus
>
>>Why is Google so difficult?
>
>You mentioned him in "When Thunder Rolled."
>
>
>AUTOCOLLIMATOR
>
>
>The silence is defeaning.
>
Give it a rest.


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:17:09 GMT, Mike Marron >
> wrote:
>
> >> Ed Rasimus
> >
> >>Why is Google so difficult?
> >
> >You mentioned him in "When Thunder Rolled."

> >AUTOCOLLIMATOR

> >The silence is defeaning.
> >
> Give it a rest.

Man from Glad, man from Glad, in flight emergency ...

[Krztalizer]

No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it if he
was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.

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

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

[George Z. Bush]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it if
he
> was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.

I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of his
luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask him?

George Z.

[Krztalizer]

>
>I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
>after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of
>his
>luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask him?

From the guys ahead of me in VS-31, the Stoof was pretty docile in comparison
to most carrier borne a/c.

/sea story mode/on

Now, this is no ****. (cof) My first skipper was tripped up by old habit on
his first Viking cruise - got a soft cat and immediately reached up to slap the
throttles (in the S-2, they are over your head, in the S-3, they're down
between the seats) and sent out the refueling prode instead. Once they got
over the soft cat, everyone pretty much died laughing at his little faux pas.

I would imagine to anyone that ever dreamed of Wings of Gold®, assignment to a
Stoof RAG, flying uncounted patterns with youngsters struggling through FAM-3
flights, it might be an easier to walk away than if Rumsfeld's career had led
him elsewhere.

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

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 3/5/04 10:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it
>if
>he
>> was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
>
>I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
>after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of
>his
>luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird.
>George Z.

Checked out after he felt his luck had run out? I didn't think you could do
that. Wish I had known. (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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: "George Z. Bush"
> >Date: 3/5/04 10:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked
it
> >if
> >he
> >> was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
> >
> >I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked
out
> >after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all
of
> >his
> >luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird.
> >George Z.
>
> Checked out after he felt his luck had run out? I didn't think you could
do
> that. Wish I had known. (grin)

No, checked out after his active duty obligation ran out--wasn't Rumsfeld on
active duty longer than *you* were, Art? And unlike you, didn't he continue
to serve as a USNR officer for many more years after his active duty hitch
was over?

Brooks

>
> ,
> >
> >
>
> 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 Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:00:38 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it if
>he
>> was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
>
>I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
>after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of his
>luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask him?
>
>George Z.
>

You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/6/04 7:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:00:38 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>>> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it
>if
>>he
>>> was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
>>
>>I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
>>after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of
>his
>>luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask him?
>>
>>George Z.
>>
>
>You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
>active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
>the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Any missions?


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

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:00:38 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it
>>> if he was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked out
>> after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all of
>> his luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask
>> him?
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>
> You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
> active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
> the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

I was aware that he had stayed in and retired as an O-6. I guess you didn't
notice that the lump in my cheek was caused by my tongue rather than a case of
the mumps. Maybe I should have included my homemade smiley sign to signify that
I didn't want my comments taken too seriously. (^-^)))

BTW, since you brought it up, don't you ever wonder how he got through the
entire Viet Nam War without any active service during it, considering how much
of a warrior he turned out to be as a civilian? Most of the rest of us who
wanted to do our bit in uniform found ways to make it happen.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 3/6/04 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:00:38 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> No kidding? I dont picture Rummy as an ASW type. Must not have liked it
>>>> if he was only on the job for three years. To each his own, I guess.
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that he was an IP. Maybe the reason he checked
>out
>>> after so short a period of time was that he felt that he had used up all
>of
>>> his luck teaching the dummies to fly that bird. Anybody ever think to ask
>>> him?
>>>
>>> George Z.
>>>
>>
>> You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
>> active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
>> the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>I was aware that he had stayed in and retired as an O-6. I guess you didn't
>notice that the lump in my cheek was caused by my tongue rather than a case
>of
>the mumps. Maybe I should have included my homemade smiley sign to signify
>that
>I didn't want my comments taken too seriously. (^-^)))
>
>BTW, since you brought it up, don't you ever wonder how he got through the
>entire Viet Nam War without any active service during it, considering how
>much
>of a warrior he turned out to be as a civilian? Most of the rest of us who
>wanted to do our bit in uniform found ways to make it happen.
>
>George Z.
>
>

Yes we did didn't we?


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 Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:47:39 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>>
>> You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
>> active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
>> the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>I was aware that he had stayed in and retired as an O-6. I guess you didn't
>notice that the lump in my cheek was caused by my tongue rather than a case of
>the mumps. Maybe I should have included my homemade smiley sign to signify that
>I didn't want my comments taken too seriously. (^-^)))
>
>BTW, since you brought it up, don't you ever wonder how he got through the
>entire Viet Nam War without any active service during it, considering how much
>of a warrior he turned out to be as a civilian? Most of the rest of us who
>wanted to do our bit in uniform found ways to make it happen.

Is that your tongue again or do I smell a herring?

If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
(pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.

He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
qualifications is adequate for me.

But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
Cohen, etc?



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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/6/04 9:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <je1k40hhe60hfmeipchm

>s that your tongue again or do I smell a herring?
>
>If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
>(pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
>college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
>influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
>Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
>completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
>
>He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
>SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
>qualifications is adequate for me.
>
>But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
>political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
>closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
>Cohen, etc?
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting war
got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.


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 06 Mar 2004 17:37:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>>From: Ed Rasimus

>>If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
>>(pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
>>college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
>>influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
>>Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
>>completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
>>
>>He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
>>SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
>>qualifications is adequate for me.
>>
>>Ed Rasimus

>WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting war
>got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Lemme see, Art, aren't you the one who was recently demanding total
obedience to orders. So, we've got this guy who goes through ROTC
(during a shooting war--Korea), then with the war over (not his
fault), he fulfills his active duty commitment, starts his real-world
career and is successful(!) Although he could abandon the military, he
continues to serve his country as a Naval Reserve officer and aviator.
His unit (through no fault of his own) is not called to active duty.
It could be, and he would go, but it isn't. So he serves and he
succeeds.

I don't see any "got out of all combat commitments" going on here. I
know you'd like to find some. Conversely, I might ask how long was
your reserve service after WW II? Didn't you realize there was a need
for your skills? Why weren't you in Korea? How old were you when
Vietnam heated up?--That would be rhetoric and cheap shots, so I won't
descend to them.

You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/6/04 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 06 Mar 2004 17:37:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>>>If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
>>>(pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
>>>college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
>>>influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
>>>Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
>>>completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
>>>
>>>He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
>>>SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
>>>qualifications is adequate for me.
>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus
>
>>WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting
>war
>>got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Lemme see, Art, aren't you the one who was recently demanding total
>obedience to orders. So, we've got this guy who goes through ROTC
>(during a shooting war--Korea), then with the war over (not his
>fault), he fulfills his active duty commitment, starts his real-world
>career and is successful(!) Although he could abandon the military, he
>continues to serve his country as a Naval Reserve officer and aviator.
>His unit (through no fault of his own) is not called to active duty.
>It could be, and he would go, but it isn't. So he serves and he
>succeeds.
>
>I don't see any "got out of all combat commitments" going on here. I
>know you'd like to find some. Conversely, I might ask how long was
>your reserve service after WW II? Didn't you realize there was a need
>for your skills? Why weren't you in Korea? How old were you when
>Vietnam heated up?--That would be rhetoric and cheap shots, so I won't
>descend to them.
>
>You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
>had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
>Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Why do you take it that way? I am really impressed. (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

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>
> WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting
> war
> got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.
>

Art, you post a lot of interesting things that I enjoy. If you are
referring to Rumsfeld, this seems a cheap shot. If he was an ASW driver,
he may have had just as much a role in avoiding shooting wars than a
BUFF driver.

My former father-in-law was a Naval aviator flying close air support
during Korea. During Viet Nam, however, I suppose you could say he "got
out of combat" since his assignments included service test pilot at
Wright-Patterson, Sixth Fleet duty, etc. For that matter, his later
flying career with RA5C's, so obviously he didn't shoot.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/6/04 10:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>My former father-in-law was a Naval aviator flying close air support
>during Korea. During Viet Nam, however, I suppose you could say he "got
>out of combat" since his assignments included service test pilot at
>Wright-Patterson, Sixth Fleet duty

He went to war and saw the elephant. He was one of us. Every thing after that
is gravy.


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

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting war
> got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.

Go see if your welfare check has come in yet, and also ask the nurse for
a larger dose.

Good Luck!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 3/6/04 10:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cJo2c.10293$m4.2072@okepread03>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> WOW ! I'm really impressed. A trained skilled pilot who during a shooting
>war
>> got out of all combat commitments. Now that is what I call skill.
>
>Go see if your welfare check has come in yet, and also ask the nurse for
>a larger dose.
>
>Good Luck!
>
>
This is a very emotional issue for me. I think of absent friends who still lie
in foreign graves. Then I think of those who could have gone and didn't. And
no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers of men were
equal

Now I'll ask the nurse for a larger dose and thanks for your good luck
wishes.


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

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> This is a very emotional issue for me.

Obviously your emotions have overtaken your other bodily functions.

> I think of absent friends who still lie in foreign graves.

Should have shipped them home. Most would have died on Route 66
anyway, as we didn't have seat belts back then.

> Then I think of those who could have gone and didn't.

Rumsfeld ain't one of them. He was a Congressman, not a combat pilot.

> And no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers
> of men were equal

Rumsfeld wasn't a pilot during his Reserve Duty. I don't think he's flown
an aircraft since 1954.

[BUFDRVR]

>You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
>had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
>Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.

Uhhh...Ed....let me introduce you to Art Kramer....


BUFDRVR

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

[[email protected]]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
>>had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
>>Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.
>
>Uhhh...Ed....let me introduce you to Art Kramer....
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

I agree...you certainly don't seem to know him...
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 3/6/04 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
>>had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
>>Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.
>
>Uhhh...Ed....let me introduce you to Art Kramer....
>
>
>BUFDRVR


I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had was a
combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know what
it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat except
for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a change
for the better in flight training.


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 06 Mar 2004 18:38:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
> This is a very emotional issue for me. I think of absent friends who still lie
>in foreign graves. Then I think of those who could have gone and didn't. And
>no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers of men were
>equal

>Arthur Kramer

And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
his brothers in arms who were still in harms way. Which doesn't even
begin to address the several hundred who were languishing in NVN
prison camps while he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Don't play the lost comrades card with me.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/6/04 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 06 Mar 2004 18:38:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>
>> This is a very emotional issue for me. I think of absent friends who still
>lie
>>in foreign graves. Then I think of those who could have gone and didn't.
>And
>>no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers of men were
>>equal
>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
>served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
>exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
>his brothers in arms who were still in harms way. Which doesn't even
>begin to address the several hundred who were languishing in NVN
>prison camps while he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
>
>Don't play the lost comrades card with me.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I thought we were talking about flying but I see it is now a purely a political
issue.
and therefore of far less interest. I never leveled any personal insults
against you as you are now against me. Lets let it go at that.


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

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:47:39 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
> >> active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
> >> the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed Rasimus
> >
> >I was aware that he had stayed in and retired as an O-6. I guess you didn't
> >notice that the lump in my cheek was caused by my tongue rather than a case
of
> >the mumps. Maybe I should have included my homemade smiley sign to signify
that
> >I didn't want my comments taken too seriously. (^-^)))
> >
> >BTW, since you brought it up, don't you ever wonder how he got through the
> >entire Viet Nam War without any active service during it, considering how
much
> >of a warrior he turned out to be as a civilian? Most of the rest of us who
> >wanted to do our bit in uniform found ways to make it happen.
>
> Is that your tongue again or do I smell a herring?
>
> If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
> (pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
> college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
> influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
> Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
> completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
>
> He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
> SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
> qualifications is adequate for me.

If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way found
fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a complete
military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.

However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the appropriate place
to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on flying
status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho a
warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a way to make
a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had wanted to
than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is insulting to
the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into active
units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly in your
own unit at one time or another.
>
> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
> Cohen, etc?

Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around when
it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you just
mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever wars they
were involved in supervising? That would be a valid comparison.....what you
just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them with an
orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.

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

[Krztalizer]

>
>You might not have read the full bios. While he spent three years on
>active duty, he then spent a full military career continuing to fly in
>the Naval Reserves until retiring with the rank of Captain (O-6).
>

Thanks for filling me in, Ed. Did it say what else he flew? Just curious.

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

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 06 Mar 2004 20:26:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


>I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had was a
>combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
>Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
>group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
>horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know what
>it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
>resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat except
>for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
>was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a change
>for the better in flight training.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

When a maximum mobilization war is on, you've got a lot of combat
veterans available to put into the training business. It was US policy
to limit combat exposure and rotate people out of the operational
units. Some other countries didn't do that.

But, Korea, Vietnam and the intervening conflicts haven't been maximum
mobilization wars. That means there weren't enough combat vets to put
into training, particularly at all levels. Interestingly enough, I was
running Air Training Command undergraduate flying training assignments
from '70-'72. That was a period of drastic production adjustments as
Nixon's Vietnamization policy instituted in '68 was cutting
requirements for bodies to fill combat pipeline cockpits. The Navy
walked into Pensacola one Saturday morning and sent several hundred
pilot trainees home or to other duties. Some were within two weeks of
graduation.

The AF chose another route. We kept everyone in the training pipeline,
but reduced acquisitions--stopped recruiting and reduced opportunities
for ROTC and AFA graduates to enter flying programs. But, we had a lot
of folks in training who needed seats when they graduated. The answer
was for each command to take a % of grads equal to their % of total
pilots in the AF. That meant Training Command had to absorb 28% of
pilot training graduates--immediate plowback into instructor pilot
duty upon graduation.

It wasn't an optimum situation, but it also was workable. With combat
experienced leadership at the flight commander level, a properly
trained recent graduate could be an effective instructor pilot at that
level.

Similarly when I went through my first operational training course, a
lot of the instructors were combat vets, but a lot weren't. Graduates
were going direct to the war, while experienced in the airplane
instructors weren't getting to go.

When I was halfway through my first combat tour, guys who had been my
instructors in F-105 training were showing up in the combat theater. I
was the experienced one and they were the new guys.

Bottom line is, we can't always have the "ideal". And, even guys who
want to get to war can't always get there when they want.



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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
>> (pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
>> college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
>> influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
>> Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
>> completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
>>
>> He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
>> SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
>> qualifications is adequate for me.
>
>If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way found
>fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a complete
>military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.
>
>However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the appropriate place
>to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on flying
>status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho a
>warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a way to make
>a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had wanted to
>than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is insulting to
>the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into active
>units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly in your
>own unit at one time or another.

So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.

If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
man.
>>
>> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
>> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
>> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
>> Cohen, etc?
>
>Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around when
>it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you just
>mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever wars they
>were involved in supervising? That would be a valid comparison.....what you
>just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them with an
>orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.

My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.

It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
etc.

Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.

I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
downtown. I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
kind of service, with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 3/6/04 2:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 06 Mar 2004 20:26:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>>I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had
>was a
>>combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
>>Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
>>group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
>>horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know
>what
>>it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
>>resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat except
>>for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that
>Rumsfeld
>>was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a change
>>for the better in flight training.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>When a maximum mobilization war is on, you've got a lot of combat
>veterans available to put into the training business. It was US policy
>to limit combat exposure and rotate people out of the operational
>units. Some other countries didn't do that.
>
>But, Korea, Vietnam and the intervening conflicts haven't been maximum
>mobilization wars. That means there weren't enough combat vets to put
>into training, particularly at all levels. Interestingly enough, I was
>running Air Training Command undergraduate flying training assignments
>from '70-'72. That was a period of drastic production adjustments as
>Nixon's Vietnamization policy instituted in '68 was cutting
>requirements for bodies to fill combat pipeline cockpits. The Navy
>walked into Pensacola one Saturday morning and sent several hundred
>pilot trainees home or to other duties. Some were within two weeks of
>graduation.
>
>The AF chose another route. We kept everyone in the training pipeline,
>but reduced acquisitions--stopped recruiting and reduced opportunities
>for ROTC and AFA graduates to enter flying programs. But, we had a lot
>of folks in training who needed seats when they graduated. The answer
>was for each command to take a % of grads equal to their % of total
>pilots in the AF. That meant Training Command had to absorb 28% of
>pilot training graduates--immediate plowback into instructor pilot
>duty upon graduation.
>
>It wasn't an optimum situation, but it also was workable. With combat
>experienced leadership at the flight commander level, a properly
>trained recent graduate could be an effective instructor pilot at that
>level.
>
>Similarly when I went through my first operational training course, a
>lot of the instructors were combat vets, but a lot weren't. Graduates
>were going direct to the war, while experienced in the airplane
>instructors weren't getting to go.
>
>When I was halfway through my first combat tour, guys who had been my
>instructors in F-105 training were showing up in the combat theater. I
>was the experienced one and they were the new guys.
>
>Bottom line is, we can't always have the "ideal". And, even guys who
>want to get to war can't always get there when they want.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Interesting stuff. I remember that we had only one non-combat instructor at Big
Springs. But he wasn't a flying instructor he was a navigation (DR) classroom
instructor and he stood out as not having any battle experience. And he often
made the mistake of saying to us, "and that is how it is in combat" and an
entire class would say under their breath, "how the hell would you know? Those
who flew an fought just seemed to get a higher level of respect than those who
never fought. But there was a war on so I guess that explains it.


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

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> If you return to the bios, you'll note that upon graduation from NROTC
> >> (pretty serious commitment and additionally indicative of getting a
> >> college degree without some sort of inheritance or paternal
> >> influence), he fulfilled his active duty commitment in the '50s (after
> >> Korea, before SEA). He could then have drifted out of service upon
> >> completion of ready reserve requirements, but he didn't.
> >>
> >> He appears to have moved down a pretty impressive career path before
> >> SEA heated up. The fact that he simultaneously maintained his reserve
> >> qualifications is adequate for me.
> >
> >If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way found
> >fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a complete
> >military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.
> >
> >However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the appropriate
place
> >to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on flying
> >status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho a
> >warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a way to
make
> >a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had wanted to
> >than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is insulting
to
> >the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into active
> >units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly in
your
> >own unit at one time or another.
>
> So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
> serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
> drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.
>
> If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
> are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
> establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
> man.
> >>
> >> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
> >> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
> >> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
> >> Cohen, etc?
> >
> >Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around
when
> >it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you just
> >mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever wars
they
> >were involved in supervising? That would be a valid comparison.....what you
> >just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them with an
> >orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.
>
> My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
> acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
> military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
> Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.
>
> It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
> active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
> service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
> combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
> etc.
>
> Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
> involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
> not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
> quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
>
> I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
> downtown. I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
> kind of service, with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
> and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way found
> >fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a complete
> >military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.
> >
> >However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the appropriate
place
> >to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on flying
> >status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho a
> >warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a way to
make
> >a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had wanted to
> >than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is insulting
to
> >the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into active
> >units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly in
your
> >own unit at one time or another.
>
> So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
> serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
> drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.

He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to read from
1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or was that just
a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting that our Senator
from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with numerous other Navy
pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off their carriers?
Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the boat" is a put down,
and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.
>
> If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
> are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
> establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
> man.

I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
Congressman.
> >>
> >> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
> >> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
> >> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
> >> Cohen, etc?
> >
> >Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around
when
> >it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you just
> >mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever wars
they
> >were involved in supervising? That would be a valid comparison.....what you
> >just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them with an
> >orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.
>
> My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
> acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
> military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
> Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.

We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from that in
those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments made
by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently considered him
far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.
>
> It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
> active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
> service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
> combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
> etc.

Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm not in
the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.
>
> Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
> involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
> not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
> quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
>
> I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
> downtown.

Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry over
his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere near
Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his contributions,
whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?

> .....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
> kind of service,

I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both sides of
the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a sub-category, I
gather that you don't have a problem with military people who one way or the
other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat theater? Mr. Rumsfeld
might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but rather
because he didn't try when he could have as opposed to how hawkish and war-like
he became subsequently when he was quite safely entrenched behind a desk in
Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve outfit in the Washington suburbs.

> .....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,

I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider people
who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as undermining
their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting to save the lives
of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war. I wasn't one of them
at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see where I was wrong and
they were right.

> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)

And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and who
come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?

George Z.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/6/04 10:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >My former father-in-law was a Naval aviator flying close air support
> >during Korea. During Viet Nam, however, I suppose you could say he "got
> >out of combat" since his assignments included service test pilot at
> >Wright-Patterson, Sixth Fleet duty
>
> He went to war and saw the elephant. He was one of us. Every thing after
> that
> is gravy.
>

Oh, I agree he did, and had the nightmares to go with it. But that
wasn't my point. That he was on a combat platform during the Cold War
doesn't mean that he was avoiding combat. In like manner, I won't say
that a SAC pilot, on airborne alert for what would have been missions
against the fUSSR that would have had extremely high casualties, was
avoiding combat.

So how is Rumsfeld avoiding combat if he's flying ASW duty, but he and
his squadronmates were part of a strategic deterresnt against Communist
forces? ASW pilots that sank subs in WWII rarely were shot at in the
Atlantic theater -- the weather, distances and aircraft reliability were
far more an issue. So is attacking a submerged sub seeing the elephant?

I don't agree with Rumsfeld on every policy, but I have no reason to
think he doesn't have personal courage. On 9/11, his first response to
the impact was to try to run to the area and see if he could help in
rescue, and was quite properly pulled back from doing so, because
one-half of the NCA doesn't belong on the front line as multiple attacks
are happening.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 3/6/04 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>You served with honor. So did the SecDef. You had one situation, he
> >>had another. Don't attempt to demean him or others to fit your agenda.
> >>Or, at least if you do, then keep the ROE consistent.
> >
> >Uhhh...Ed....let me introduce you to Art Kramer....
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
>
>
> I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had
> was a
> combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct.
> My
> Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th
> bomb
> group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
> horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know
> what
> it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his
> training
> resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat
> except
> for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that
> Rumsfeld
> was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a
> change
> for the better in flight training.
>

Assuming he was an ASW pilot, where would he have seen combat?
Certainly, after the WWII ASW people retired, there was no one who saw
actual combat in that specialty, except a few Brits at the Falklands.
Did lots of ASW pilots participate in pindown, just-short-of-war
operations? Without question, in the Cold War.

Given that there were no airborne combat with subs between 1945 and
1982, how would you get people with experience in the current systems,
against a much more capable threat?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

w?
> Those
> who flew an fought just seemed to get a higher level of respect than
> those who
> never fought. But there was a war on so I guess that explains it.
>

I don't know if your last sentence was serious or sarcastic. But yes, it
does explain having combat-experienced instructors available. That
wasn't a choice for many years thereafter.

[Dave Kearton]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,

|
|
| So how is Rumsfeld avoiding combat if he's flying ASW duty, but he and
| his squadronmates were part of a strategic deterresnt against Communist
| forces?


| ASW pilots that sank subs in WWII rarely were shot at in the
| Atlantic theater -- the weather, distances and aircraft reliability were
| far more an issue. So is attacking a submerged sub seeing the elephant?
|
|


Very minor nitpick Howard.


ASW crews in the Atlantic were routinely shot at in the latter part of the
war and some were shot down by their quarry.


From late '43, the anti submarine weapons became more common and more
effective. U-boat crews often felt they had a better chance of survival
if they stayed on the surface and engaged the aircraft at over 2,000m with
20mm and larger.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[[email protected]]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>>
>
>Assuming he was an ASW pilot, where would he have seen combat?
>Certainly, after the WWII ASW people retired, there was no one who saw
>actual combat in that specialty, except a few Brits at the Falklands.
>Did lots of ASW pilots participate in pindown, just-short-of-war
>operations? Without question, in the Cold War.
>
>Given that there were no airborne combat with subs between 1945 and
>1982, how would you get people with experience in the current systems,
>against a much more capable threat?

You don't need to be firing live ammo, dropping live depth
charges and torps to get experience in using all the latest
gadgets and gizmos Howard.

It's a much practiced skill. World wide competitions are held in
the science by almost every Armed Force in existance.

Matter of fact you likely get more skill in their use when you
aren't worried about getting yer goodies blown off. ASW is about
99 percent work and skill in detection and localization and 1
percent in the coup de grace.

Doesn't take a lot of skill to drop a string of 8 mk54's at 50
foot spacing across a sub from 50 feet when you know exactly
where he is. Tends to ruin his day too :).

Now, if you wanna have a beer in the mess with him tonight you
substitute 8 SUS (signals underwater sound) for the Mk 54's and
do so...
--

-Gord.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way
found
> > >fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a
complete
> > >military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.
> > >
> > >However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the
appropriate
> place
> > >to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on
flying
> > >status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as gung ho
a
> > >warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have found a
way to
> make
> > >a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet Nam if he had
wanted to
> > >than by staying current in the active Reserves? That suggestion is
insulting
> to
> > >the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who managed to find their way into
active
> > >units committed to prosecuting that war, some of whom were undoubtedly
in
> your
> > >own unit at one time or another.
> >
> > So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
> > serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
> > drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.
>
> He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to read
from
> 1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or was
that just
> a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting that our
Senator
> from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with numerous other Navy
> pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off their carriers?
> Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the boat" is a put
down,
> and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.

Uhmm..that Senator from Arizona was not flying S2F's, either, was he? Ed's
point stands, while you are heading off in another direction.

> >
> > If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
> > are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
> > establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
> > man.
>
> I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
> Congressman.

And pray tell how, if he *was* still in a flight status (I don't think he
was--USNR types often give up their primary specialty when they leave active
duty and enter into the reserve realm due to their location, or the lack of
reserve billets in their particular specialty; my brother-in-law left active
duty as a submariner and served his reserve career out without ever again
doing any duty on a sub), how would he have been able to get an active duty
tour in Vietnam (or environs) flying an aircraft that was not essential to
the war effort, protecting against a North Vietnamese threat that did not
exist (i.e., they had no submarines for him to hunt)?

> > >>
> > >> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
> > >> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
> > >> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
> > >> Cohen, etc?
> > >
> > >Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few
around
> when
> > >it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you
just
> > >mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever
wars
> they
> > >were involved in supervising? That would be a valid
comparison.....what you
> > >just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them
with an
> > >orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.
> >
> > My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
> > acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
> > military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
> > Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.
>
> We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
> particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from that
in
> those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments
made
> by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
considered him
> far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.

Having served his active duty committment, and then going on to serve the
rest of his career in the USNR, makes his somehow "far from hawkish"? That
is an illogical statement.

> >
> > It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
> > active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
> > service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
> > combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
> > etc.
>
> Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm
not in
> the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.

Why? You have already strongly inferred that his prior active duty service,
coupled with his subsequent reserve service, is somehow lacking. So why not
have the balls to jump all of the way into the water and say it?

> >
> > Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
> > involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
> > not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
> > quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
> >
> > I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
> > downtown.
>
> Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry
over
> his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere
near
> Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his
contributions,
> whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?

Kerry's personal service, and the manner in which he obtained his early
return from his combat tour, would never have been a subject of discussion
had not he himself tried to impugn the Guard service of the current
President. When he did that, he opened the door to the questions of just how
he received not one, not two, but three seperate flesh wounds, and how he
actively worked to secure his own early return from the theater under a Navy
rule that stated an individual who had suffered three wounds of *any*
severity level could be returned from the theater, "after consideration of
his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis". It was not
a hard-set three wounds and you are out policy. Now how does that wording
apply to a guy who suffered a grand total of what, one or two lost duty days
for *one* of his three wounds? Not to mention the question of whether or not
Kerry himself actually performed any reserve duty after his later (again
early) release from active duty. As to his contributions...is that what you
call his testifying that US troops were conducting widespread atrocities
(using a speech drafted by RFK's former speechwriter, no less, and based
upon the since discredited, and Jane Fonda sponsored, "Winter Soldier
Investigation" "testimony") and criminal acts, accusations which were never
validated even after further investigation by the services?

>
> > .....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
> > kind of service,
>
> I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both
sides of
> the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
sub-category, I
> gather that you don't have a problem with military people who one way or
the
> other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat theater? Mr.
Rumsfeld
> might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but
rather
> because he didn't try when he could have as opposed to how hawkish and
war-like
> he became subsequently when he was quite safely entrenched behind a desk
in
> Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve outfit in the Washington suburbs.

By then he was a reservist who had already done his turn in the active duty
barrel. You get no points for that attack.

>
> > .....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
>
> I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider
people
> who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as
undermining
> their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting to save the
lives
> of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war. I wasn't one of
them
> at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see where I was
wrong and
> they were right.

Whoah. Firstly, Kerry's conversion to raving anti-Vietnam critic came only
after he found he needed an "issue" that would get him some publicity--read
BG Burkett's "Stolen Valor", published (1998) well before the current
political campaign began:

"Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. Friends said
that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not
visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. "I thought of him as a rather normal
vet," a friend said to a reporter, "glad to be out but not terribly uptight
about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political
ambitions called him "a very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue."

Given his flip-flop on the medals-tossing issue ("They weren't really
mine"), this adds up to a man with political ambitions who jumped on the
VVAW bandwagon as a way of getting himself recognized, not because he came
home with a burning ambition to get US troops out of Vietnam. Had the latter
been his objective, why did he resort to making unsubstantiated claims about
widespread atrocities? And why did he have that speechwriter draft his
testimony?

Brooks

>
> > .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not.
(Those
> > aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>
> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
who
> come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?
>
> George Z.
>
>
>
>

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:

> I thought we were talking about flying but I see it is now a purely a political
> issue.
> and therefore of far less interest. I never leveled any personal insults
> against you as you are now against me. Lets let it go at that.
>
> Arthur Kramer


It seems to me that you have been talking about combat. You certainly
have pointedly separated flying from combat throughout this thread.

I gather your position is that the U.S. should go to war at least once
every generation so that the brave can be distinguished from the rest.

I take that if you had been ORDERED to a non-combat aircrew postion you
would have refused the lawful order of your superiors?


Dave

[BUFDRVR]

>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
>was an instructor who had never been to combat.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it out
of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was a
slackard.

I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

> Mr. Rumsfeld
>might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but
>rather
>because he didn't try when he could have

So...you're trying to say that Rumsfeld should have applied for re-instatement
to active duty (most certainly possible), applied to cross train into an
aircraft being used in SE Asia (highly unlikely) and then requested immediate
stationing in a Carrier Air Wing headed for SE Asia (???). And because he
didn't accomplish these 3 events you hold him in contempt? Your politics are
interfering with any good judgement you may have.


BUFDRVR

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

[Buzzer]

On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
>>was an instructor who had never been to combat.
>
>It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
>during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
>who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
>guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
>but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
>navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
>the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it out
>of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
>important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was a
>slackard.
>
>I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?

Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
trainees will not respect them.
The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Buzzer
>Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
>>>was an instructor who had never been to combat.
>>
>>It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
>>during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
>>who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
>>guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
>>but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
>>navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
>>the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it
>out
>>of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
>>important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was
>a
>>slackard.
>>
>>I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?
>
>Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
>have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
>situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
>trainees will not respect them.
>The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
>pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
>spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
>building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?
>

You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were woman
and old men and high school kids. Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,
And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment for
any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those were
different times with obviously different standards.


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

[D. Strang]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
> during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
> who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.

I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on the way
to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.

It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.

Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
was sent packing.

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: Buzzer
> >Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >
> >>>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
> >>>was an instructor who had never been to combat.
> >>
> >>It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
everyone
> >>during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
friends
> >>who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
These
> >>guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart
beat,
> >>but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand
new
> >>navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job
considering
> >>the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get
it
> >out
> >>of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the
most
> >>important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it
was
> >a
> >>slackard.
> >>
> >>I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?
> >
> >Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
> >have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
> >situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
> >trainees will not respect them.
> >The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
> >pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
> >spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
> >building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?
> >
>
> You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were
woman
> and old men and high school kids.

No, they were not. That may be *your* twisted perception of reality, but it
is no more correct than your recent ludicrous pronouncements about the
National Guard during WWII.

"In 1944 there were 104,450,000 people over 14. Of that total 65,140,000
were in the labor force either as workers or in the military and 38,590,000
were not in the labor force (down less than 4 million from 1940). There were
46,520,000 males in the labor force including the military, of whom
35,460,000 were in the civilian workforce and 19,170,000 women in the
civilian workforce."

www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair50/m50c13n.html

The male civilian workforce vastly outnumbered the women workforce (about
two to one), and the fact of the matter is that the majority of those males
would have had to have fallen into the age group which would have been
eligable for military service (if not the draft).

> Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,

In actuality, since the US armed forces only totalled about 11 plus million
strong at its peak, your statement is again wrong, since there were some 35
million men serving in the civilian workforce, and even if you were very
generous and said only one-third of those fell within the military's
age-eligibility range, you'd still have one military age male serving in the
civilian workforce for every man in the military force.

> And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment
for
> any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those
were
> different times with obviously different standards.

Guess you might have taken more kindly to them if you had been smart enough
to realize that it would have been sort of hard for you to drop bombs that
were never manufactured because there were no younger, skilled, strong men
back in the States to help manufacture them; the women and old men couldn't
do it all. In the end the contribution of a mobilized US industrial base to
the war effort was every bit as valuable as that of the military forces, and
in fact neither would have existed without the other. One has to wonder how
willing a young, cocky Loo-tenant bombadier-by-golly like yourself, fresh
back from winning the war all by your lonesome, was to go up to a big brawny
crew of male shipbuilders/railroad workers/etc., and tell them how you did
not take kindly to their contribution to the war effort. Since you still
apparently have the use of your typing fingers, the obvious answer to that
is, "Not very."

Brooks

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

[[email protected]]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:


> Since you still apparently have the use of your
>typing fingers, the obvious answer to that
>is, "Not very."
>
>Brooks
>

Well done...

(...my stomach!...my stomach!!...)

:)
--

-Gord.

[Pete]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both
sides of
> the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
sub-category, I
> gather that you don't have a problem with military people who one way or
the
> other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat theater? Mr.
Rumsfeld
> might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but
rather
> because he didn't try when he could have as opposed to how hawkish and
war-like
> he became subsequently when he was quite safely entrenched behind a desk
in
> Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve outfit in the Washington suburbs.

There is a whole group of then-active duty fighter pilots who did not
participate in Desert Storm.

Let us look at one of those pilots.
This person is running for Congressman in 2004. It is public knowledge that
candidate Joe Cool served in the Air Force from 1986-1992 as an F-16 pilot.
Indeed, he served with distinction, often earning top scores in competition.
He left the Air Force in 1992 to pursue a political career, rising from city
council to being the leading Republican candidate in his state. On leaving
active duty, he was transferred to the Inactive Reserves.

He is strong on defense issues, and it will be a tight race.

The subject of his 'combat record' comes up. It is leaked by the opposition
party that candidate Joe Cool, while having served honorably, failed to
actually fly any missions during the biggest military action of his time,
Desert Storm. This was a was in which most of the Air Force participated,
indeed 8 out of 10 pilots in the theater to which he was assigned (USAFE),
went and fought. After the war, after the shooting stopped, he flew a few
'support missions' over northern Iraq before leaving active duty.

Why did Joe Cool not fly alongside his brothers? After all, he was a fully
qualified F-16 pilot, a senior O-3. Flight lead, squadron safety officer.
Why was he not flying missions over Iraq when there were other pilots being
targeted with SAM's and AAA, some of them even being shot down?

How can he be so hawkish now, when previously he avoided combat? Why was he
performing such safe, mundane desk duties as squadron safety officer when
other pilots were being shot down?

Was there some influence by a family benefactor to keep him out of combat?
Or maybe something more sinister? He *is* a stockholder in Exxon and
Halliburton, after all.

Or maybe, the reason he didn't fly combat in Desert Storm was because no one
else from his base did either. He was stationed at Ramstein AB, Germany at
the time, and the 86FW (F-16 C/D), unique among USAFE fighter Wings, sent
zero aircraft and pilots to fly in Desert Storm. The pilots were *****ed*.
But somebody had to stay behind and 'guard Europe'.

You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
outweigh...

Pete
Capt. Joe Cool is obviously a fictional character. Ramstein is not.

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message

> > You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were
> woman
> > and old men and high school kids.
>
> No, they were not. That may be *your* twisted perception of reality, but it
> is no more correct than your recent ludicrous pronouncements about the
> National Guard during WWII.
>
> "In 1944 there were 104,450,000 people over 14. Of that total 65,140,000
> were in the labor force either as workers or in the military and 38,590,000
> were not in the labor force (down less than 4 million from 1940). There were
> 46,520,000 males in the labor force including the military, of whom
> 35,460,000 were in the civilian workforce and 19,170,000 women in the
> civilian workforce."
>
> www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair50/m50c13n.html
>
> The male civilian workforce vastly outnumbered the women workforce (about
> two to one), and the fact of the matter is that the majority of those males
> would have had to have fallen into the age group which would have been
> eligable for military service (if not the draft).

Like my old Scoutmaster, a skilled machinist prior to the war. Born in 1916, he
was given a draft deferment because he was considered essential to war
production, as he was working for Douglas (and later North American) building
tooling jigs for DC-3s and then B-25s. In 1945 as a/c production was winding
down, his deferment was removed. He was in basic when the bomb was dropped, and
then spent his service time in the army of occupation in Germany. But even
there, the Army was smart enough to take advantage of his skills rather than
just sticking him in the infantry or some other unskilled position; they
assigned him to an ordnance company, where he maintained and repaired weapons
until he was demobilized a year or so later.

Numerous other job categories were exempt or deferred, such as most merchant
seamen -- see

http://www.usmm.org/draft.html

Here's a list of classifications I was able to find:

1A: fit for general active military service.
1B: fit for limited military service.
1C: member of the armed forces.
1D: students fit for general military service.
1E: students fit for limited military service.
IIA: deferred for critical civilian work/occupational
deferment.
IIIA: deferred due to dependents.
IVA: already served in the armed forces. another site states: age
deferred.
IVB: deferred by law, i. e. draft officials.
IVC: enemy alien, i. e.: Japanese-American citizens
IVD: ministers
IVE: conscientious objector
IVF: physically, mentally, or morally unfit for service.

Presumably my scoutmaster would have been classified IIA, then reclassified 1A
in 1945.

Guy

[Dave Kearton]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:bSx2c.10362$m4.4748@okepread03...
| "BUFDRVR" > wrote
| >
| > It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
everyone
| > during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
friends
| > who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
|
| I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on the
way
| to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.
|
| It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.
|
| Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
| take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
| perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
| the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
| out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
| board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
| was sent packing.
|
|




OK guys, I've been following this discussion (and others) for a while now.

I've noticed a fair amount of frustration in both sides of the argument
that's drifting into personal invective. Can we all remember that Art
is one of us, he's a regular here ?


Whether you agree with him or not, perhaps we can all treat him with the
respect due to any senior citizen, any veteran and any gentleman that we
meet somewhere.


Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to call a spade a spade when some
no-name coward chucks **** at someone here, for no real reason, but some
of the comments that have been flying around in this discussion, simply
show no respect.



I guess I'd like us to seperate what he's saying from who is sayng it and
treat Art with a little more courtesy, as is his due.


In turn, Art can take a deeper breath and do the same.




Thank you gentlemen



Dave Kearton

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Guy Alcala
>Date: 3/6/04 9:59 PM Pacific

>Presumably my scoutmaster would have been classified IIA, then reclassified
>1A
>in 1945.
>
>Guy

If you have to be classified 1a, 1945 is a good time for it.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2

>You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
>outweigh...

The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they volunteered
for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for. The Air
Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for. Maybe some
of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
possibility?


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

[Pete]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
volunteered
> for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for. The
Air
> Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
> volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for. Maybe
some
> of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
> possibility?

Not in the situation I laid, out, no. Higher HQ says go, you go. If they say
stay here and do other stuff, that's what you do. You follow orders. There
is no AF Form or procedure called "I want to go" except for going on active
duty in the first place.

The wing in question was the only one in USAFE to not send any
jets/pilots/maintainers. There was no question of 'volunteering'. We were
already on active duty. And we *all* wanted to go.

Similarly, not everyone on active duty during Vietnam saw action in SEA.
There was still a mission several thousand miles away in
Germany/England/Holland/Korea/Japan to handle.

Pete

[Guy Alcala]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: Guy Alcala
> >Date: 3/6/04 9:59 PM Pacific
>
> >Presumably my scoutmaster would have been classified IIA, then reclassified
> >1A
> >in 1945.
> >
> >Guy
>
> If you have to be classified 1a, 1945 is a good time for it.

Sure was, although they didn't know that at the time. He would have undoubtably
wound up going to Japan if the war hadn't ended, although he still would have
been in ordnance or a similar field where his skills were required.

Guy

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > wrote:

> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>
> > > You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were
> > woman
> > > and old men and high school kids.
> >
> > No, they were not. That may be *your* twisted perception of reality, but it
> > is no more correct than your recent ludicrous pronouncements about the
> > National Guard during WWII.
> >
> > "In 1944 there were 104,450,000 people over 14. Of that total 65,140,000
> > were in the labor force either as workers or in the military and 38,590,000
> > were not in the labor force (down less than 4 million from 1940). There
> > were
> > 46,520,000 males in the labor force including the military, of whom
> > 35,460,000 were in the civilian workforce and 19,170,000 women in the
> > civilian workforce."
> >
> > www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair50/m50c13n.html
> >
> > The male civilian workforce vastly outnumbered the women workforce (about
> > two to one), and the fact of the matter is that the majority of those males
> > would have had to have fallen into the age group which would have been
> > eligable for military service (if not the draft).
>
> Like my old Scoutmaster, a skilled machinist prior to the war. Born in 1916,
> he
> was given a draft deferment because he was considered essential to war
> production, as he was working for Douglas (and later North American) building
> tooling jigs for DC-3s and then B-25s. In 1945 as a/c production was winding
> down, his deferment was removed. He was in basic when the bomb was dropped,
> and
> then spent his service time in the army of occupation in Germany. But even
> there, the Army was smart enough to take advantage of his skills rather than
> just sticking him in the infantry or some other unskilled position; they
> assigned him to an ordnance company, where he maintained and repaired weapons
> until he was demobilized a year or so later.
>
> Numerous other job categories were exempt or deferred, such as most merchant
> seamen -- see
>
> http://www.usmm.org/draft.html
>
> Here's a list of classifications I was able to find:
>
> 1A: fit for general active military service.
> 1B: fit for limited military service.
> 1C: member of the armed forces.
> 1D: students fit for general military service.
> 1E: students fit for limited military service.
1O: conscientious objector [refused to serve on
religious/moral grounds]
1AO: "conscientious cooperator" [would serve as medic, etc.]*
> IIA: deferred for critical civilian work/occupational
> deferment.
> IIIA: deferred due to dependents.
> IVA: already served in the armed forces. another site states:
> age
> deferred.
> IVB: deferred by law, i. e. draft officials.
> IVC: enemy alien, i. e.: Japanese-American citizens
> IVD: ministers
> IVE: conscientious objector
> IVF: physically, mentally, or morally unfit for service.


* at least one MOH recipient was 1AO; Desmond T. Doss, in Okinawa.

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any way
>>>> found fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue a
>>>> complete military career in the Reserve forces right up through retirement.
>>>>
>>>> However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the appropriate
>>>> place to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or 0-5 on
>>>> flying status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is as
>>>> gung ho a warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not have
>>>> found a way to make a more direct contribution to our war effort in Viet
>>>> Nam if he had wanted to than by staying current in the active Reserves?
>>>> That suggestion is insulting to the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers who
>>>> managed to find their way into active units committed to prosecuting that
>>>> war, some of whom were undoubtedly in your own unit at one time or another.
>>>
>>> So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
>>> serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
>>> drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.
>>
>> He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to read
>> from 1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or was
>> that just a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting that
>> our Senator from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with numerous
>> other Navy pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off their
>> carriers? Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the boat" is
>> a put down, and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.
>
> Uhmm..that Senator from Arizona was not flying S2F's, either, was he?

Nobody said anything about specific equipment qualifications. We all are aware,
or should be, that people transitioned from one type of equipment to another
quite commonly, as the needs of the services demanded.

> ......Ed's point stands, while you are heading off in another direction.

Funny, I had the impression that you were the one wandering off in another
direction.
>
>>>
>>> If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
>>> are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
>>> establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
>>> man.
>>
>> I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
>> Congressman.
>
> And pray tell how, if he *was* still in a flight status (I don't think he
> was--USNR types often give up their primary specialty when they leave active
> duty and enter into the reserve realm due to their location, or the lack of
> reserve billets in their particular specialty; my brother-in-law left active
> duty as a submariner and served his reserve career out without ever again
> doing any duty on a sub), how would he have been able to get an active duty
> tour in Vietnam (or environs) flying an aircraft that was not essential to
> the war effort, protecting against a North Vietnamese threat that did not
> exist (i.e., they had no submarines for him to hunt)?
>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
>>>>> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
>>>>> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
>>>>> Cohen, etc?
>>>>
>>>> Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around
>>>> when it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you
>>>> just mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever
>>>> wars they were involved in supervising? That would be a valid
>>>> comparison.....what you just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared
>>>> us to compare them with an orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.
>>>
>>> My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
>>> acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
>>> military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
>>> Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.
>>
>> We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
>> particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from that in
>> those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments
>> made by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
>> considered him far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.
>
> Having served his active duty committment, and then going on to serve the
> rest of his career in the USNR, makes his somehow "far from hawkish"? That
> is an illogical statement.
>
>>>
>>> It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
>>> active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
>>> service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
>>> combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
>>> etc.
>>
>> Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm not
>> in the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.
>
> Why? You have already strongly inferred that his prior active duty service,
> coupled with his subsequent reserve service, is somehow lacking. So why not
> have the balls to jump all of the way into the water and say it?

I don't recall that I made any kind of point about it piquing my curiosity.
What of it? Is it not permitted for some reason? In plain English, some Nixon
staffers (if not Nixon himself) considered him a dove during the war while the
shooting was going on, and now he's clearly a hawk and running the show. The
dichotomy certainly does interest me, not to mention the timing of the change.
>
>>>
>>> Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
>>> involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
>>> not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
>>> quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
>>>
>>> I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
>>> downtown.
>>
>> Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry over
>> his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere near
>> Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his contributions,
>> whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?
>
> Kerry's personal service, and the manner in which he obtained his early
> return from his combat tour, would never have been a subject of discussion
> had not he himself tried to impugn the Guard service of the current
> President. When he did that, he opened the door to the questions of just how
> he received not one, not two, but three seperate flesh wounds,

That'd be three more than the President, or anybody half a world away, got.

> .....and how he actively worked to secure his own early return from the
theater under a Navy
> rule that stated an individual who had suffered three wounds of *any*
> severity level could be returned from the theater, "after consideration of
> his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis". It was not
> a hard-set three wounds and you are out policy. Now how does that wording
> apply to a guy who suffered a grand total of what, one or two lost duty days
> for *one* of his three wounds?

He satisfied the published rotation requirements. Anybody who thought they were
too generous did a disservice to his fellow servicemen by failing to bring it up
at the time.

> .....Not to mention the question of whether or not Kerry himself actually
performed any reserve duty after his later (again
> early) release from active duty. As to his contributions...is that what you
> call his testifying that US troops were conducting widespread atrocities
> (using a speech drafted by RFK's former speechwriter, no less, and based
> upon the since discredited, and Jane Fonda sponsored, "Winter Soldier
> Investigation" "testimony") and criminal acts, accusations which were never
> validated even after further investigation by the services?

Never heard of My Lai, I guess. I remember reading stories in the press at the
time about GIs cutting off the ears of dead VC for mementos. As for his
testimony, he testified only as to so-called atrocities that he had heard other
servicemen testify to under oath, along with his personally taking part in free
fire zone operations, which he considered to be an atrocity. As for reserve
duty after his early release, I don't remember it being questioned.....I imagine
he did about the same as Bush did when he got out of the Texas ANG early.
>
>>
>>> .....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
>>> kind of service,
>>
>> I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both sides
>> of the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
>> sub-category, I gather that you don't have a problem with military people
>> who one way or the other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat
>> theater? Mr. Rumsfeld might find his name on my list there, not because he
>> never got there, but rather because he didn't try when he could have as
>> opposed to how hawkish and war-like he became subsequently when he was quite
>> safely entrenched behind a desk in Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve
>> outfit in the Washington suburbs.
>
> By then he was a reservist who had already done his turn in the active duty
> barrel. You get no points for that attack.

That doesn't matter in the least, since that is precisely the point.....that he
could have even as a reservist but didn't. Becoming a hawk isn't hard when you
know that you won't have to expose yourself to the potentially painful
possibility of having to pay the price.
>
>>
>>> .....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
>>
>> I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider
>> people who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as
>> undermining their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting
>> to save the lives of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war.
>> I wasn't one of them at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can
>> see where I was wrong and they were right.
>
> Whoah. Firstly, Kerry's conversion to raving anti-Vietnam critic came only
> after he found he needed an "issue" that would get him some publicity--read
> BG Burkett's "Stolen Valor", published (1998) well before the current
> political campaign began:
>
> "Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. Friends said
> that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not
> visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. "I thought of him as a rather normal
> vet," a friend said to a reporter, "glad to be out but not terribly uptight
> about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political
> ambitions called him "a very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue."
>
> Given his flip-flop on the medals-tossing issue ("They weren't really
> mine"), this adds up to a man with political ambitions who jumped on the
> VVAW bandwagon as a way of getting himself recognized, not because he came
> home with a burning ambition to get US troops out of Vietnam. Had the latter
> been his objective, why did he resort to making unsubstantiated claims about
> widespread atrocities?

I don't think the claims he made were unsubstantiated, since they were all based
on sworn tesitimony of returned servicemen who had either participated in those
activities or had observed others doing those things. As for it being
widespread, I think that would be your characterization of it, not his. Show me
a transcript where he's quoted as saying that everybody was doing that sort of
stuff. I don't think one exists, but take a stab at it if you think it's worth
the effort.

> ....And why did he have that speechwriter draft his testimony?

I don't know why he would do that, if in fact he did. Perhaps he just wanted to
make sure that what he said would be accurate, and not colored by the emotional
strain of giving such testimony.

>>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
>>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>>
>> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
>> who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?
>>
>> George Z.

[Buzzer]

On 07 Mar 2004 04:38:28 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>>From: Buzzer
>>Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>
>>>>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
>>>>was an instructor who had never been to combat.
>>>
>>>It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
>>>during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
>>>who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours. These
>>>guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart beat,
>>>but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand new
>>>navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job considering
>>>the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to get it
>>out
>>>of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the most
>>>important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing it was
>>a
>>>slackard.
>>>
>>>I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?
>>
>>Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
>>have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
>>situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
>>trainees will not respect them.
>>The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
>>pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
>>spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
>>building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?
>>
>
>You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were woman
>and old men and high school kids. Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,

Did any of your relatives stay behind in WWII Art?
Did they all see combat?
How many of your relatives served during the Civil War, and wars after
that? All of them in combat?

>And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment for
>any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those were
>different times with obviously different standards.

Really Art it isn't much different today. It is still the I was in
combat and you weren't from the Korean war, Vietnam, etc. I believe
it is one of the reasons veterans can't get together and present a
united front like AARP and the senior citizens. One of the reasons the
goverment can walk all over veterans and retired military and get away
with it..

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 22:50:14 -0600, "D. Strang"
> wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>>
>> It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not everyone
>> during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good friends
>> who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
>
>I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on the way
>to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.

I was a passenger on a C-130 in 1967 that was suppose to fly from Ubon
to Okinawa and they pulled that trick. Plane landed and pulled onto
the taxiway and sat. I figured we had made really good time to
Okinawa. Crew chief put the steps out and came back and asked if I
wanted to get out and take a look around DaNang?
DANANG? DANANG, VIETNAM? What the are we doing here?
Crew needed to land so they could get their combat pay for the month..
>
>It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.
>
>Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
>take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
>perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
>the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
>out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
>board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
>was sent packing.
>

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 01:51:49 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

Snip/cut/slash/whack..

There are a lot articles about the Kerry speech, etc, but this one
seems to put it all together the best...

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp

>I don't think the claims he made were unsubstantiated, since they were all based
>on sworn tesitimony of returned servicemen who had either participated in those
>activities or had observed others doing those things. As for it being
>widespread, I think that would be your characterization of it, not his. Show me
>a transcript where he's quoted as saying that everybody was doing that sort of
>stuff. I don't think one exists, but take a stab at it if you think it's worth
>the effort.
>
>> ....And why did he have that speechwriter draft his testimony?
>
>I don't know why he would do that, if in fact he did. Perhaps he just wanted to
>make sure that what he said would be accurate, and not colored by the emotional
>strain of giving such testimony.
>
>>>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
>>>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>>>
>>> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
>>> who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?
>>>
>>> George Z.
>

[Cub Driver]

> Many combat vets
>take awhile before they can become effective teachers

If we're speaking about the USAAF in WWII, some never made the
adjustment at all. The army found some men too nervous in the service
to be trusted as teachers. But still it was an inspired system.

Ed mentioned that "some countries" didn't follow this
combat-to-instructor rotation. Actually, I think that should be "no
other country" beside the U.S. The RAF may have done a bit of it,
without advertising it, but in most air forces you flew until you
died. The Germans were particularly egregious. Far from sending combat
pilots to teach, they sent instructors to combat (they did this in a
vain attempt to salvage Tunisia in 1943) thus depriving the air force
of the next generation of trained pilots.

Both Germany and Japan were sending men into combat by the end of the
war with fewer than 150 or even 100 hours of flying time.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>>And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a deferment
>for
>>any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those
>were
>>different times with obviously different standards.
>
>Really Art it isn't much different today.

Well, I won't speak for the other services, but in the USAF, the guys/gals left
behind aren't treated any differently than those who went. The only minor
difference is the guys who went have a few more tales to tell at the bar. Why
would I possibly look down upon a guy who didn't go to combat through no fault
of his own? I missed out on DESERT STRIKE in 1996 because I was home on leave
and it was a "come as you are" operation that was 80 hours from notification to
weapons launch. Was it my fault I missed out? No, just bad timing. In 1998 I
was also a victim of poor timing. I had just returned from upgrading to
aircraft commander in November and by mid-December I was *nearly* finished with
mission qualification training.....when Clinton ordered Operation DESERT FOX.
Once again, through no fault of my own, 75% of my squadron picked up and left
for the Indian Ocean. Not only did the guys who go not look down on me when
they got back, they made a point not to discuss the operation around me because
they knew it had killed me not to go. Since then, I haven't missed a combat
operation involving BUFFs and don't think any less of those who have.


BUFDRVR

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

[T3]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> > >From: Buzzer
> > >Date: 3/6/04 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >On 07 Mar 2004 03:25:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> > >
> > >>>I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
> > >>>was an instructor who had never been to combat.
> > >>
> > >>It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
> everyone
> > >>during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
> friends
> > >>who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
> These
> > >>guys would have jumped on a jet for England or Diego Garcia in a heart
> beat,
> > >>but it wasn't thier job. What was there job? They were teaching brand
> new
> > >>navigators and co-pilots how to operate the B-52, a critical job
> considering
> > >>the drastic under manning we had (and have) in the B-52. You need to
get
> it
> > >out
> > >>of your thick head that what you were doing on a daily basis was the
> most
> > >>important job in the history of the world and anyone who wasn't doing
it
> was
> > >a
> > >>slackard.
> > >>
> > >>I know I'm wasting my time here....why do I bother?
> > >
> > >Your good friends were a bunch of slackers. Everyone knows all you
> > >have to do is volunteer for combat and off you go. An even worse
> > >situation is if an instructor doesn't have combat time all the
> > >trainees will not respect them.
> > >The more I think about it I wonder if the combat veterans in WWII
> > >pulled a reverse Vietnam war situation. When they returned home they
> > >spit on the civilians that stayed stateside doing useless things like
> > >building Arts aircraft, building bombs and ammo, ect..?
> > >
> >
> > You are not far wrong. Most of those who built our planes and ammo were
> woman
> > and old men and high school kids.
>
> No, they were not. That may be *your* twisted perception of reality, but
it
> is no more correct than your recent ludicrous pronouncements about the
> National Guard during WWII.
>
> "In 1944 there were 104,450,000 people over 14. Of that total 65,140,000
> were in the labor force either as workers or in the military and
38,590,000
> were not in the labor force (down less than 4 million from 1940). There
were
> 46,520,000 males in the labor force including the military, of whom
> 35,460,000 were in the civilian workforce and 19,170,000 women in the
> civilian workforce."
>
> www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair50/m50c13n.html
>
> The male civilian workforce vastly outnumbered the women workforce (about
> two to one), and the fact of the matter is that the majority of those
males
> would have had to have fallen into the age group which would have been
> eligable for military service (if not the draft).
>
> > Damn few who could go to war stayed behind,
>
> In actuality, since the US armed forces only totalled about 11 plus
million
> strong at its peak, your statement is again wrong, since there were some
35
> million men serving in the civilian workforce, and even if you were very
> generous and said only one-third of those fell within the military's
> age-eligibility range, you'd still have one military age male serving in
the
> civilian workforce for every man in the military force.
>
> > And when we all came back and found that someone our age got a
deferment
> for
> > any reason other than physical we did nott ake kindly to them But those
> were
> > different times with obviously different standards.
>
> Guess you might have taken more kindly to them if you had been smart
enough
> to realize that it would have been sort of hard for you to drop bombs that
> were never manufactured because there were no younger, skilled, strong men
> back in the States to help manufacture them; the women and old men
couldn't
> do it all. In the end the contribution of a mobilized US industrial base
to
> the war effort was every bit as valuable as that of the military forces,
and
> in fact neither would have existed without the other. One has to wonder
how
> willing a young, cocky Loo-tenant bombadier-by-golly like yourself, fresh
> back from winning the war all by your lonesome, was to go up to a big
brawny
> crew of male shipbuilders/railroad workers/etc., and tell them how you did
> not take kindly to their contribution to the war effort. Since you still
> apparently have the use of your typing fingers, the obvious answer to that
> is, "Not very."
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
>
>
Well said!!!!

[T3]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:bSx2c.10362$m4.4748@okepread03...
> | "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> | >
> | > It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
> everyone
> | > during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
> friends
> | > who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
> |
> | I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on
the
> way
> | to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.
> |
> | It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.
> |
> | Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
> | take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
> | perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
> | the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
> | out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
> | board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
> | was sent packing.
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
> OK guys, I've been following this discussion (and others) for a while
now.
>
> I've noticed a fair amount of frustration in both sides of the argument
> that's drifting into personal invective. Can we all remember that Art
> is one of us, he's a regular here ?
>
>
> Whether you agree with him or not, perhaps we can all treat him with the
> respect due to any senior citizen, any veteran and any gentleman that we
> meet somewhere.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to call a spade a spade when some
> no-name coward chucks **** at someone here, for no real reason, but some
> of the comments that have been flying around in this discussion, simply
> show no respect.
>
>
>
> I guess I'd like us to seperate what he's saying from who is sayng it and
> treat Art with a little more courtesy, as is his due.
>
>
> In turn, Art can take a deeper breath and do the same.
>
>
>
>
> Thank you gentlemen
>
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>
Yes, a real deep one and back off about six miles...........

T3

[T3]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 06 Mar 2004 18:38:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >>
> > This is a very emotional issue for me. I think of absent friends who
still lie
> >in foreign graves. Then I think of those who could have gone and didn't.
And
> >no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers of men
were
> >equal
>
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
> served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
> exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
> his brothers in arms who were still in harms way. Which doesn't even
> begin to address the several hundred who were languishing in NVN
> prison camps while he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
>
> Don't play the lost comrades card with me.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Not that I'm a big fan of Kerry, I don't believe voicing one's opinion
against and unjust war where over 50,000 of our brothers died is giving "aid
and comfort to the enemy" Jane Fonda he "ain't"Not even close...........


T3

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:

> I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had was a
> combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
> Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
> group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
> horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know what
> it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
> resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat except
> for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that Rumsfeld
> was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a change
> for the better in flight training.

My father was an instructor with no combat experience.
I'm not certain what sort of instructor; basic I'd suppose.

He was all set to strap on a P-47 and destroy the LW single
handedly he once told me, but found to his great disappointment
that he'd been made an instructor!

As you have said, he too was afraid the war would be over by
the time he got there as it was, and now, he's saddled with
an instructors job!

Said he got a lecture by the CO saying how important good
instruction was, and that he would indeed be doing an
important part in destroying the LW.

He eventually converted to B-29s as a way to get to combat
in the Pacific, only to have that war end before he could
actually get there. "Bum luck" I guess.

Eventually got his "combat" experience in a sort of way.
Flying during the Berlin Airlift cost a lot of people their
lives flying very difficult weather and conditions. A few
bullet holes in his transport aircraft during Korea and
especially Vietnam (even to the French at Dien Bien Phu).
All the various "crises" of the Cold War (Suez crisis,
Libyan crisis, Lebanon crisis,...).

I can no longer quiz him on the details, and I probably
have some of them wrong, but although he'll never be a USAF
"combat veteran", it sure as hell wasn't through a lack of
effort on his part in trying! He simply followed the orders
that the USAF gave him. No wrangling, no "influence".

[Actually, after his death we got some of his official records
and there was a comment on some form stating "Congressional
influence" or something such as this.

This apparently dated from his original posting to Japan again
without the family being allowed to come. My mother broke
ranks with the AF and wrote her Congressman and Senator
claiming all his overseas posts were without family and it
was finally time for the family to be posted with him!

We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]


SMH

[T3]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> > The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
> volunteered
> > for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for.
The
> Air
> > Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
> > volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for.
Maybe
> some
> > of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
> > possibility?
>
> Not in the situation I laid, out, no. Higher HQ says go, you go. If they
say
> stay here and do other stuff, that's what you do. You follow orders. There
> is no AF Form or procedure called "I want to go" except for going on
active
> duty in the first place.
>
> The wing in question was the only one in USAFE to not send any
> jets/pilots/maintainers. There was no question of 'volunteering'. We were
> already on active duty. And we *all* wanted to go.
>
> Similarly, not everyone on active duty during Vietnam saw action in SEA.
> There was still a mission several thousand miles away in
> Germany/England/Holland/Korea/Japan to handle.
>
> Pete
>
>
There was a running joke in the '60's about a guy who got naked with only an
American flag who went down to the draft office and wanted to sign up for
duty in VN, they took one look at him and said
your f'ing crazy, to which he said write it down!!

T3

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "T3"
>Date: 3/7/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >
>> > The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
>> volunteered
>> > for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for.
>The
>> Air
>> > Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
>> > volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for.
>Maybe
>> some
>> > of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
>> > possibility?
>>
>> Not in the situation I laid, out, no. Higher HQ says go, you go. If they
>say
>> stay here and do other stuff, that's what you do. You follow orders. There
>> is no AF Form or procedure called "I want to go" except for going on
>active
>> duty in the first place.
>>
>> The wing in question was the only one in USAFE to not send any
>> jets/pilots/maintainers. There was no question of 'volunteering'. We were
>> already on active duty. And we *all* wanted to go.
>>
>> Similarly, not everyone on active duty during Vietnam saw action in SEA.
>> There was still a mission several thousand miles away in
>> Germany/England/Holland/Korea/Japan to handle.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>There was a running joke in the '60's about a guy who got naked with only an
>American flag who went down to the draft office and wanted to sign up for
>duty in VN, they took one look at him and said
>your f'ing crazy, to which he said write it down!!
>
> T3

THINGS SAID IN JEST..........



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

[Thomas Schoene]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
> served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
> exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
> his brothers in arms who were still in harms way.

Ed, I have a concern here. It may be that I misunderstand you, so please
don't take this personally.

It's often been said that people who didn't fight in Vietnam didn't have the
credibility to criticize the war. Now you suggest that those who did fight
aren't supposed to be critical either because it's disloyal. How then is
anyone allowed to oppose a war that they believe to be unjust? Surely we
have to have some way to do that or we suffer badly as a democratic society.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider people
> who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as undermining
> their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting to save the lives
> of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war. I wasn't one of them
> at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see where I was wrong and
> they were right.

Well there can be some self-fulfilling prophesy with this.
You don't feel a war is winnable, so work to end it, thus
losing it.

I'm certain there would have been people with such feeling
in WWII during the times the Japanese were running rampant
in the Pacific in 1941/42, or Russians in front of Moscow
in 1941, or Romans facing 10 years of Hannibal in Italy in
the 200's BC.

Current consensus seems to be that Vietnam was unwinable,
or, if it was winnable, it would require a level of brutality
from American arms that leaders of the time felt were not
acceptable.

Personally, I feel you should object to a war *before* you
get involved in it, not while it's underway and especially
not while it is tough going.

There was no clear cut decision to go to war in Vietnam (or
Korea) as I feel there really should have been. The ongoing
Iraqi adventure did have some discussion and vote although
not an official declaration.

Yet we have people here on the corner of my hometown in front
of the court house every weekend protesting the war and
occasionally doing their part for peace by blocking traffic.
Some of these people feel the war is unwinable, and thus
they are apparently great patriots in doing what they can to
help the US lose that war.

Kudos to them I suppose.


SMH

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 3/7/04 5:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> I think back to the days of my training in Texas. Every instructor we had
>was a
>> combat veteran who completed his tour of duty and came back to instruct. My
>> Bombing instructor was a veteran of 25 missions with the bloody 100th bomb
>> group. He flew them from England to Berlin without fighter escort taking
>> horrible losses. He not only tought us our basic job, but he let us know
>what
>> it acutually was like in combat and all during my tour of duty his training
>> resulted in the fact that there were no surprises for us in combat
>except
>> for the time we are attacked by an ME 262. I find it interesting that
>Rumsfeld
>> was an instructor who had never been to combat. I don't see that as a
>change
>> for the better in flight training.
>
>My father was an instructor with no combat experience.
>I'm not certain what sort of instructor; basic I'd suppose.
>
>He was all set to strap on a P-47 and destroy the LW single
>handedly he once told me, but found to his great disappointment
>that he'd been made an instructor!
>
>As you have said, he too was afraid the war would be over by
>the time he got there as it was, and now, he's saddled with
>an instructors job!
>
>Said he got a lecture by the CO saying how important good
>instruction was, and that he would indeed be doing an
>important part in destroying the LW.
>
>He eventually converted to B-29s as a way to get to combat
>in the Pacific, only to have that war end before he could
>actually get there. "Bum luck" I guess.
>
>Eventually got his "combat" experience in a sort of way.
>Flying during the Berlin Airlift cost a lot of people their
>lives flying very difficult weather and conditions. A few
>bullet holes in his transport aircraft during Korea and
>especially Vietnam (even to the French at Dien Bien Phu).
>All the various "crises" of the Cold War (Suez crisis,
>Libyan crisis, Lebanon crisis,...).
>
>I can no longer quiz him on the details, and I probably
>have some of them wrong, but although he'll never be a USAF
>"combat veteran", it sure as hell wasn't through a lack of
>effort on his part in trying! He simply followed the orders
>that the USAF gave him. No wrangling, no "influence".
>
>[Actually, after his death we got some of his official records
>and there was a comment on some form stating "Congressional
>influence" or something such as this.
>
>This apparently dated from his original posting to Japan again
>without the family being allowed to come. My mother broke
>ranks with the AF and wrote her Congressman and Senator
>claiming all his overseas posts were without family and it
>was finally time for the family to be posted with him!
>
>We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
>3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
>lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
>plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]
>
>
>SMH
>


Good post. Lets not confuse fine men like yoour father who did everything they
could to get in with men who never tried or even worked to avoid doing combat
duty. We had all too many of those. Obviously we can't say that every man wh
never saw combat because it was :no fault of their own: There were all too many
who never saw combat and it damn well was the fault of their deliberate
avoidance where possible. But your dad flew the Berlin airlift, I would say
that constitutes combat in every sense of the word. But to say that every man
who never saw combat really wanted to, but it was just bad luck that he didn't
is failing to deal with reality. There wer even many that used self inflicted
wounds to avoid combat or who feighned insanity or would marry any woman they
could get their hands on, ge her pregnant to avoid being called up. There were
those who signed up at colleges and universities to get delays in being
called up just to avoid combat. Avoiding combat was a minor industry that we
now refuse to look at and now cover up as not being "politically correct"


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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Many combat vets
> >take awhile before they can become effective teachers
>
> If we're speaking about the USAAF in WWII, some never made the
> adjustment at all. The army found some men too nervous in the service
> to be trusted as teachers. But still it was an inspired system.
>
> Ed mentioned that "some countries" didn't follow this
> combat-to-instructor rotation. Actually, I think that should be "no
> other country" beside the U.S. The RAF may have done a bit of it,
> without advertising it,

The RAF did rather a lot of it

With bomber pilots for example crews who survived a tour
would go on leave then be posted to an Operational Training
Unit to pass their knowledge on to new crews. Fighter pilots
tended to follow the same path with quite a number being posted
to bases set up in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand
under the Empire flight taining schemes

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 3/7/04 5:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > Many combat vets
>> >take awhile before they can become effective teachers
>>
>> If we're speaking about the USAAF in WWII, some never made the
>> adjustment at all. The army found some men too nervous in the service
>> to be trusted as teachers. But still it was an inspired system.
>>
>> Ed mentioned that "some countries" didn't follow this
>> combat-to-instructor rotation. Actually, I think that should be "no
>> other country" beside the U.S. The RAF may have done a bit of it,
>> without advertising it,
>
>The RAF did rather a lot of it
>
>With bomber pilots for example crews who survived a tour
>would go on leave then be posted to an Operational Training
>Unit to pass their knowledge on to new crews. Fighter pilots
>tended to follow the same path with quite a number being posted
>to bases set up in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand
>under the Empire flight taining schemes
>
>Keith
>
>
>
Combat vvets made the best instructors. They brought realit to the game. But
they were not welcomed by those who couldn't take reality.


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]

>"D. Strang" > wrote:

>It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.

Even more phenomenal is that he always ends up getting all the
attention that he so desperately seeks. Just like Tarver, it doesn't
matter if the attention Kramer gets is good or bad attention, as long
as SOMEONE is paying attention to him!

>Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
>take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
>perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
>the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
>out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
>board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
>was sent packing.

Many outstanding golf instructors will never compete on the PGA level,
but guys like Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods would never
have become champions without the expert guidance and critiques from
their instructors.

An effective teacher doesn't necessarily have to have "been there
and done that."

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> If you have to be classified 1a, 1945 is a good time for it.

Anyone can drop bombs. Not many can make bombs or the delivery
vehicles. Face it, you had no skills, and were sent overseas. You could
have been a clerk typist, or a boilerman on a laundry ship.

Anyone who would brag about going to war, or their medals, is a
scum-bag in my book.

You are a braggart, and a pitiful excuse for an American. You need
to re-evaluate your life, and determine where you went wrong, and
then apologize to your family.

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Combat vvets made the best instructors. They brought realit to the game. But
> they were not welcomed by those who couldn't take reality.

Reality? What a braggart...

[Jim Baker]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: "Pete"
> >Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2
>
> >You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
> >outweigh...
>
> The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
volunteered
> for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for. The
Air
> Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
> volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for. Maybe
some
> of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
> possibility?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military. There's
no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into an
aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the war
goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't get
into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than wars
lasting many years.

JB
Bomber Pilot (ret)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 3/7/04 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>> >From: "Pete"
>> >Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2
>>
>> >You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
>> >outweigh...
>>
>> The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
>volunteered
>> for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for. The
>Air
>> Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
>> volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for. Maybe
>some
>> of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
>> possibility?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
>Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military. There's
>no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
>ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into an
>aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
>truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
>because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
>volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the war
>goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
>those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
>your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't get
>into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than wars
>lasting many years.
>
>JB
>Bomber Pilot (ret)
>
>


That is the first rational post on the subject yet. Thanks. What did you fly?


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

[Yeff]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 08:01:57 -0800, Jim Baker wrote:

> Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
> Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military. There's
> no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
> ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into an
> aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
> truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
> because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
> volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the war
> goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
> those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
> your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't get
> into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than wars
> lasting many years.

I was stationed at Clark AB in the PI when the Desert Shield deployments
started. I was working a swing one evening when we got a message that our
command (Electronic Security Command) was calling for volunteers in my
career field (Signals Intelligence Analyst).

I was newly married and had a baby but I *really* wanted to be part of what
was going on. I thought about it for awhile and finally told my
Surveillance & Warning Center Supervisor and my Flight Commander that I'd
be talking with my wife that evening but I was sure I would be volunteering
for the deployment. Neither of them had any objections and they both shook
my hand and wished me luck. That night I talked with my wife and she
didn't object.

The next day I came into work early to give myself time to talk to whomever
it was I needed to talk to about getting sent to Saudi. By then our unit
commander had seen the message asking for volunteers, had gotten a slew of
people asking to sign up, and had made a few phone calls. It turned out
that people in my unit were *forbidden* to volunteer for Desert Shield.

Here's what happened: When the Desert Shield deployments first started
there was a lot of talk in the news about how the personnel in Saudi would
be receiving Hostile Fire Pay. This made the Admiral at PACOM a bit upset
since all of his personnel in the Philippines were living under severe
restrictions because of the serious terrorist threat. He reportedly talked
to some Congressmen (that's the story - I don't know if it really happened)
who decided that we in the PI were getting killed off more often than the
people in Saudi Arabia (11 Americans were killed by the New Peoples Army
during my tour there) and that we deserved HFP also.

Once we started getting the money we were technically in a war zone, and
you aren't allowed to deploy from a war zone in one theater (PACOM) to a
war zone in another (CENTCOM).

The United States was building up for a war on the Arabian Peninsula and
those of us stationed in the Philippines were forbidden from playing.

In Art's world I should have done something (anything) like being
cross-trained to a new career field to get to the war. In the real world
my AFSC was critically manned so none of us were allowed to cross-train.
Desert Storm came and I had to sit that one out.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:28:58 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
>> served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
>> exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
>> his brothers in arms who were still in harms way.
>
>Ed, I have a concern here. It may be that I misunderstand you, so please
>don't take this personally.
>
>It's often been said that people who didn't fight in Vietnam didn't have the
>credibility to criticize the war. Now you suggest that those who did fight
>aren't supposed to be critical either because it's disloyal. How then is
>anyone allowed to oppose a war that they believe to be unjust? Surely we
>have to have some way to do that or we suffer badly as a democratic society.

A legitimate question. My problem is that once you don the uniform and
swear the oath, you forfeit your first amendment (and most other)
rights. A commissioned officer is obligate to obey the lawful orders
of those place over him. Once commissioned, even after leaving active
duty, you are still a commissioned officer subject to recall. You
still have the obligations.

When Kerry left his crew after only four months in theater, he
jeopardized them. When he testified before the US Senate (in that odd
combination of rumpled fatiques and battle ribbons) that atrocities
were the order of the day throughout the theater, he lied about it and
simultaneously indicated that he failed to fulfill his obligations as
an officer to terminate such activities if he had witnessed them. He
defamed all of us.

When he protested with his bearded friends on the Marine Memorial,
displaying the inverted US flag, he violated his loyalty to the Navy
and the Corps. When he provided aid and comfort to the North
Vietnamese by demeaning the American military deployed in combat
against them, he went way too far for a citizen, and reached the
unforgivable for a military officer.

The essential issue is that once you choose the course of military
service (which he claims he did as a patriot), you then are being a
hypocrite if you later reverse course quite clearly for political
gain. The sensationalist actions and inflammatory rhetoric which he
engaged in after his return from brief service is certainly not
effective political debate. It is demagogic posturing.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
>> serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
>> drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.
>
>He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to read from
>1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or was that just
>a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting that our Senator
>from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with numerous other Navy
>pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off their carriers?
>Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the boat" is a put down,
>and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.

Can you make the distinction between an S2F and tactical aircraft?
Stoofs drone around for hours on end. They don't go to tactical
targets. No S2F aviator spent time in the Hilton. Six S2s were lost in
the war (2 in '66, 3 in '67 and 1 in '68), 16 fatalties, no POWs. From
'69 through '75 there were no losses.

John McCain is highly respected by the Nam-POWs for his service.

>>
>> If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
>> are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
>> establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
>> man.
>
>I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
>Congressman.

I'm not saying it comes into play, but have you ever heard of "duty
and travel restsrictions"? Limitations on duty postings for folks who
have recent experience with certain levels of classified information
(the sort of thing a congressperson might have.
>> >>
>> >> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
>> >> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
>> >> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
>> >> Cohen, etc?
>> >
>> >Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few around
>when
>> >it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those you just
>> >mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during whatever wars
>they
>> >were involved in supervising? That would be a valid comparison.....what you
>> >just did was toss our a bunch of apples and dared us to compare them with an
>> >orange. Not the same thing, and you know it.
>>
>> My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
>> acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
>> military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
>> Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.
>
>We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
>particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from that in
>those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments made
>by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently considered him
>far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.

So, are you having a problem with Rumsfeld because he is too hawkish
or too dovish?
>>
>> It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
>> active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
>> service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
>> combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
>> etc.
>
>Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm not in
>the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.

You need to read more slowly. Those are criteria that have been
popping up in the thread, they aren't mine.
>>
>> Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
>> involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
>> not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
>> quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
>>
>> I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
>> downtown.
>
>Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry over
>his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere near
>Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his contributions,
>whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?

No defense for his contributions at all. Four months in theater of a
one year tour? Three PHs with no missed duty? Beaching his boat under
attack, thereby removing his mobility? Going ashore to dispatch a
wounded peasant already shot with a .50 cal? Then rushing home to tell
tales about the atrocities being committed wholesale by American
service men?
>
>> .....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
>> kind of service,
>
>I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both sides of
>the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a sub-category, I
>gather that you don't have a problem with military people who one way or the
>other avoided the possibility of serving in a combat theater? Mr. Rumsfeld
>might find his name on my list there, not because he never got there, but rather
>because he didn't try when he could have as opposed to how hawkish and war-like
>he became subsequently when he was quite safely entrenched behind a desk in
>Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve outfit in the Washington suburbs.

Let me suggest that in the period from the autumn of 2001 until the
present it is decidedly appropriate to be hawkish and war-like.
Turning the other cheek is not an option. We've seen the outcome of
dovish policies.
>
>> .....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
>
>I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider people
>who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as undermining
>their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting to save the lives
>of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war. I wasn't one of them
>at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see where I was wrong and
>they were right.

A war that "could not be won" not because of lack of military
capability, but because of lack of political will--primarily as a
result of a confederation of draft dodging students, moralistic
professors, attention seeking movie stars and pandering politicians.

We could have won the war in '66 when we started to get serious and we
demonstrably DID end the war in eleven days at the end of '72.
>
>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>
>And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and who
>come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?

Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
experience war. The incredible majority of warriors are successful
people who have served their country and lived normal productive
lives. Failure to identify the liars and poseurs is abrogation of my
responsibility to tell the truth and stand up for what I believe in.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:bSx2c.10362$m4.4748@okepread03...
> | "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> | >
> | > It's hard for me to believe that you cannot conceptualize that not
> everyone
> | > during times of combat operations sees action. I've got several good
> friends
> | > who, through no fault of their own, have exactly *zero* combat hours.
> |
> | I used to fly with a navigator who had .5 combat hours. He got it on
the
> way
> | to Thailand in a C-141 during the Vietnam war.
> |
> | It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.
> |
> | Being an Instructor has very little to do with combat. Many combat vets
> | take awhile before they can become effective teachers. They tend to be
> | perfectionists, and are used to crews who are their peers. Once back at
> | the training center, the pace and mistakes cause them to wash students
> | out. We had one guy who washed his first three students out, and the
> | board reinstated all of them with a new instructor. The bad instructor
> | was sent packing.
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
> OK guys, I've been following this discussion (and others) for a while
now.
>
> I've noticed a fair amount of frustration in both sides of the argument
> that's drifting into personal invective. Can we all remember that Art
> is one of us, he's a regular here ?

Art has demonstrated a marked propensity for making outright false
statements. It would be one thing if he misspoke and then accepted the
corrections offered by others--instead he steamrolls along, repeating the
same falsehoods over and over again. That unwillingness to accept the truth
when it has been presented to him, and his continued spouting of that
incorrect information, is what draws the line between an innocent mistake
and willful lying. A few sycophants pop up out of the woodwork and give him
a misdirected pat on the back, and he's off again, creating new falsehoods.
First it was the Guard he denigrated, whose members had been on active duty
for over two years by the time Art entered the service, had already suffered
casualties, had already seen some of its members endure the Death march at
Bataan; even in the face of repeated proof being presented to him by
numerous posters, Art continued with his claims that the Guard during WWII
was the home of shirkers and a "laughingstock" for the *real* he-men such as
himself. Now his false statements have been expanded to include those men
who stayed behind and made sure the soldiers, airmen, and sailors had the
tools they needed to conduct the fight. Of course, his previous broad brush
approach has even included those servicememebers who did their duty yet did
not see direct combat during the war--Art is, after all, something of an
equal opportunity kind of fellow when it comes to denigration.

>
>
> Whether you agree with him or not, perhaps we can all treat him with the
> respect due to any senior citizen, any veteran and any gentleman that we
> meet somewhere.

Funny thing about respect--it is a two-way street. Art has failed to give
respect to many more people than he has in return had demonstrated against
him. One of my first posts in this NG, a few years back, was offered up in
defense of Art; I can recall thinking at the time how a WWII veteran
deserved better respect than what the poster I responded to had shown him. A
bit more time observing Art's posts changed my mind--here we have a guy who
feels compelled to tear down others' accomplishments or contributions
because he feels it makes his own look somehow more vital. That trait in and
of itself is enough reason to deny Art any significant degree of
respect--that he also has a proven integrity problem is just icing on the
cake.

>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to call a spade a spade when some
> no-name coward chucks **** at someone here, for no real reason, but some
> of the comments that have been flying around in this discussion, simply
> show no respect.

Because we have none for him. Because someone should also be willing to
speak up in memory of those who Art has falsely labled, and who can no
longer defend themselves (like all of those Guardsmen who died at Buna,
Bataan, Normandy, Guadalcanal, the Ardennes, and the Rapido River in Italy).
Because some folks actually take Art's rants as being historically correct,
when the record all too often proves otherwise (even when it comes to his
own specialty, B-26 operations in the ETO; he has repeatedly claimed his
group never missed its target, yet the B-26 bomb group that was recognized
as having the best record for operational bombing accuracy itself missed at
least six of its assigned targets according to one of their bombadiers who
kept a record of their performance). As others have also noted, when a man
is caught lying, it is hard to know whether anything he says afterwards is
true or not. Often Art's lies start out with him merely spouting off about
things he himself has not ever bothered to actually find the truth
regarding, such as this latest claim that old men and women made up the
majority of the civilian work force during the war--he has been presented
evidence that proves this was not the case (far from it, in actuality), but
you'll note he has not changed his story.

>
> I guess I'd like us to seperate what he's saying from who is sayng it and
> treat Art with a little more courtesy, as is his due.

Not when he sees fit to treat countless others as he has, and continues to
do. Note the wide range of posters who have taken Art to task for his posts
of late--many are generally responsible and respectful posters in most
circumstances. You'll note that most have avoided dropping into name
calling, etc., but finally pointing out after repeated corrections have been
offered that Art is indeed a proven liar is not so much a personal attack as
a statement of fact.

>
>
> In turn, Art can take a deeper breath and do the same.

To do that, Art would have to humble himself by admitting that his
characterizations of the Guard and the civilian workforce during WWII have
been wrong, and he'd have to acknowledge that all of those men and women who
have honorably served, in whatever capacity, deserve the same level of
respect for their service that he expects to be given himself; I wouldn't
hold my breath waiting for that if i were you.

Brooks

>
>
>
>
> Thank you gentlemen
>
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 08:01:57 -0800, "Jim Baker"
> wrote:

>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>> >From: "Pete"
>> >Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2
>>
>> >You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
>> >outweigh...
>>
>> The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
>volunteered
>> for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for. The
>Air
>> Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
>> volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for. Maybe
>some
>> of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
>> possibility?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
>Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military. There's
>no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
>ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into an
>aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
>truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
>because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
>volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the war
>goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
>those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
>your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't get
>into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than wars
>lasting many years.

Ubon early 1967 they were asking for enlisted volunteers to kick
flares out of the C-130s stationed on base. I was going to volunteer
and discussed it with the shop chief. No problem. You fly at night and
pull your regular shift during the day. And when do I sleep? That's
your problem. I figured driving an MJ-1 up close and personal with
loaded aircraft with no sleep was not exactly a wise thing to do...
But I had the chance...

[D. Strang]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> A war that "could not be won" not because of lack of military
> capability, but because of lack of political will--primarily as a
> result of a confederation of draft dodging students, moralistic
> professors, attention seeking movie stars and pandering politicians.
>
> We could have won the war in '66 when we started to get serious and we
> demonstrably DID end the war in eleven days at the end of '72.

I have a little bit different historical perspective.

The purpose of the countries division in half, was to let the people
cool down after having just dispatched the French colonists, who
attempted to return to the pre-Japanese world order.

There was to be an election.

It wasn't until the United States cancelled the elections, that all hell
broke loose. While I'll admit the North was very active in
convincing the south to follow their lead (a few assassinations,
here and there), the South wasn't made up of just idiots.

The failure of Democracy, ended in Communism. Which for
Vietnam may be a better form of government, as they are
mostly peasants outside the major cities.

The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation
would have resulted in the loss of SE Asia, Germany, and
Turkey. Most of the planet would be still working through
the contaminated zones of the nuclear fallout problems.

To win Vietnam, would mean we would have to win WW#3.
To win China, meant we would have to go nuclear, as the
technology we have today wasn't invented then, or would
work reliably enough.

[Kevin Brooks]

"T3" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 06 Mar 2004 18:38:56 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> > >>
> > > This is a very emotional issue for me. I think of absent friends who
> still lie
> > >in foreign graves. Then I think of those who could have gone and
didn't.
> And
> > >no amount of discussion will convince me that these two calibers of men
> were
> > >equal
> >
> > >Arthur Kramer
> >
> > And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
> > served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
> > exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
> > his brothers in arms who were still in harms way. Which doesn't even
> > begin to address the several hundred who were languishing in NVN
> > prison camps while he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
> >
> > Don't play the lost comrades card with me.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > Smithsonian Institution Press
> > ISBN #1-58834-103-8
> >
>
> Not that I'm a big fan of Kerry, I don't believe voicing one's opinion
> against and unjust war where over 50,000 of our brothers died is giving
"aid
> and comfort to the enemy" Jane Fonda he "ain't"Not even close...........

He did not just voice his opinion. He presented testimony to congress
(written not by him but by a former speechwriter for RFK named Adam
Walinski) which parroted the since-discredited offal that came form the
"Winter Soldier Investigation", which he had attended and which was indeed
sponsored by Ms. Fonda. Suggest you read the pertinent passages from B.G.
Burkett's "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes
and its History" regarding Mr. Kerry and his committment to the antiwar
cause. Burkett wrote this book in 1998, long before Mr. Kerry became a
presidential candidate, and he only discusses him in passing (the book
concentrates more on revealing those who created fake Vietnam war records
for themselves and dispelling a lot of popular myths about Vietnam
veterans). He notes that friends of Mr. Kerry did not notice him as being
particularly disturbed by his (short) combat tour, or that he was
particularly anti-war--but one did note that he was "a very charismatic
fellow looking for a good issue." How much of his anti-Vietnam sentiment was
heartfelt and how much was a product of his desire to gain publicity to
support his political ambitions is the question for which we have no answer.

Brooks

>
>
> T3
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > And, yet you don't seem to respect the opinion of those of us who
> > served in SEA that the actions of Lt John F. Kerry after his
> > exceptionally brief service were to the detriment of half a million of
> > his brothers in arms who were still in harms way.
>
> Ed, I have a concern here. It may be that I misunderstand you, so please
> don't take this personally.
>
> It's often been said that people who didn't fight in Vietnam didn't have
the
> credibility to criticize the war. Now you suggest that those who did
fight
> aren't supposed to be critical either because it's disloyal. How then is
> anyone allowed to oppose a war that they believe to be unjust? Surely we
> have to have some way to do that or we suffer badly as a democratic
society.

Tom, read what BG Burkett had to say about Kerry's antiwar activities in
"Stolen Valor" (written way back in 1998, and discussing Kerry only in
passing). And remember that his testimony before Congress was largely
nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the detrius resulting from the
discredited "Winter Soldier Investigation", fancied up by former RFK
speechwriter Adam Walinski. Add in the fact that Kerry has flip-flopped on
the "I tossed my medals over the wall" issue to his present, "Gee, aren't my
framed medals really nice". had Kerry come back and offered a heartflet, and
more importantly accurate, depiction of why he opposed the war, and left out
the baseless accusations of widespread attrocities, etc., I have little
doubt Ed would bear him little concern; but Kerry went well beyond that. He
even went so far as to defend his fellow VVAW "combat veteran" Al Hubbard
(who IIRC was his partner when he appeared on "Meet the Press" in 1971 to
speak out against the war)--Hubbard was later discovered to have created his
own "combat history", as did another VVAW leader, Michael Harbert. Read
Burkett's book (it was recommended by folks like Joseph Galloway and James
Webb) before you start accepting much of the old VVAW line.

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:22:18 -0600, "D. Strang"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> A war that "could not be won" not because of lack of military
>> capability, but because of lack of political will--primarily as a
>> result of a confederation of draft dodging students, moralistic
>> professors, attention seeking movie stars and pandering politicians.
>>
>> We could have won the war in '66 when we started to get serious and we
>> demonstrably DID end the war in eleven days at the end of '72.
>
>I have a little bit different historical perspective.
>
>The purpose of the countries division in half, was to let the people
>cool down after having just dispatched the French colonists, who
>attempted to return to the pre-Japanese world order.

The "country" was divided in four by the Geneva Accords--Laos,
Cambodia, N & S Vietnam. It recognized tribal and cultural differences
in the post-colonial period. It certainly wasn't a return to a
pre-Japanese order.

>
>There was to be an election.

Very good. Provided of course that the elections could be guaranteed
by the ICC observers as fair and accurate.
>
>It wasn't until the United States cancelled the elections, that all hell
>broke loose. While I'll admit the North was very active in
>convincing the south to follow their lead (a few assassinations,
>here and there), the South wasn't made up of just idiots.

Adminstration of the elections was an ICC responsibility--Canadians,
Indians and Poles. The delay of the elections was a result of the
emergence of a full blown insurgency, AKA "a few assassinations here
and there."

Bringing elections to a region which has been a colonial subject for
fifteen years, an occupied territory for fifteen more years, and a
corrupt monarchy before--one without a history of democratic
traditions and without political parties, doesn't come easy. Witness
Iraq.
>
>The failure of Democracy, ended in Communism. Which for
>Vietnam may be a better form of government, as they are
>mostly peasants outside the major cities.

You might want to read about the COMINTERN and the training of
revolutionaries in Moscow to facilitate the revolutions of the workers
of the world. Communism didn't follow the "failure of democracy"--it
was brought to the North by Ho Chi Minh (COMINTERN graduate and
revolutionary) and then infiltrated into the South to compete and
undermine the attempts at democracy.

Marx certainly didn't think of Communism as agrarian--it was a product
of industrialization.

You might also take a look at the preponderance of free market
capitalism in Vietnam today. There really is a "Hanoi Hilton" now--and
they feature an "American breakfast" in the price of the room!
>
>The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
>the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation
>would have resulted in the loss of SE Asia, Germany, and
>Turkey. Most of the planet would be still working through
>the contaminated zones of the nuclear fallout problems.

That is very much the thinking of the period. We were still grappling
with the questions of how to keep wars from escalating into nuclear
conflict. Invasion of the North might have been necessary, but had we
not employed the gradualism of Rolling Thunder, we might very well
have achieved capitulation of the NVN much earlier.

In retrospect (although we had no way of knowing it at the time), the
Chinese were not at all eager to confront the US and the Soviets had
little interest other than maintenance of a client state.
>
>To win Vietnam, would mean we would have to win WW#3.
>To win China, meant we would have to go nuclear, as the
>technology we have today wasn't invented then, or would
>work reliably enough.

A lot of counters to that argument have been written in the ensuing
thirty plus years.



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

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
> 3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
> lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
> plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]

Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in Japan, the
last three of which were at Tachikawa.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any
way
> >>>> found fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue
a
> >>>> complete military career in the Reserve forces right up through
retirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the
appropriate
> >>>> place to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or
0-5 on
> >>>> flying status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is
as
> >>>> gung ho a warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not
have
> >>>> found a way to make a more direct contribution to our war effort in
Viet
> >>>> Nam if he had wanted to than by staying current in the active
Reserves?
> >>>> That suggestion is insulting to the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers
who
> >>>> managed to find their way into active units committed to prosecuting
that
> >>>> war, some of whom were undoubtedly in your own unit at one time or
another.
> >>>
> >>> So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
> >>> serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
> >>> drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to
read
> >> from 1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or
was
> >> that just a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting
that
> >> our Senator from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with
numerous
> >> other Navy pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off
their
> >> carriers? Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the
boat" is
> >> a put down, and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.
> >
> > Uhmm..that Senator from Arizona was not flying S2F's, either, was he?
>
> Nobody said anything about specific equipment qualifications. We all are
aware,
> or should be, that people transitioned from one type of equipment to
another
> quite commonly, as the needs of the services demanded.

Let's see, a forty-something guy who has in all likelihood been off flight
status altogether for some time...yeah, that is real likely to happen...

>
> > ......Ed's point stands, while you are heading off in another direction.
>
> Funny, I had the impression that you were the one wandering off in another
> direction.

No, you felt the burning need to toss McCane into the mix--why, I don't
know.

> >
> >>>
> >>> If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
> >>> are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
> >>> establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
> >>> man.
> >>
> >> I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer
a
> >> Congressman.
> >
> > And pray tell how, if he *was* still in a flight status (I don't think
he
> > was--USNR types often give up their primary specialty when they leave
active
> > duty and enter into the reserve realm due to their location, or the lack
of
> > reserve billets in their particular specialty; my brother-in-law left
active
> > duty as a submariner and served his reserve career out without ever
again
> > doing any duty on a sub), how would he have been able to get an active
duty
> > tour in Vietnam (or environs) flying an aircraft that was not essential
to
> > the war effort, protecting against a North Vietnamese threat that did
not
> > exist (i.e., they had no submarines for him to hunt)?

Eh? Oh, that's right; according to you reservists just pick and choose which
aircraft Uncle sam is going to pay (big bucks) for them to requalify into,
right?

> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
> >>>>> political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
> >>>>> closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
> >>>>> Cohen, etc?
> >>>>
> >>>> Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few
around
> >>>> when it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those
you
> >>>> just mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during
whatever
> >>>> wars they were involved in supervising? That would be a valid
> >>>> comparison.....what you just did was toss our a bunch of apples and
dared
> >>>> us to compare them with an orange. Not the same thing, and you know
it.
> >>>
> >>> My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
> >>> acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
> >>> military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
> >>> Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.
> >>
> >> We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
> >> particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from
that in
> >> those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of
comments
> >> made by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
> >> considered him far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.
> >
> > Having served his active duty committment, and then going on to serve
the
> > rest of his career in the USNR, makes his somehow "far from hawkish"?
That
> > is an illogical statement.
> >
> >>>
> >>> It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
> >>> active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
> >>> service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
> >>> combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
> >>> etc.
> >>
> >> Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm
not
> >> in the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.
> >
> > Why? You have already strongly inferred that his prior active duty
service,
> > coupled with his subsequent reserve service, is somehow lacking. So why
not
> > have the balls to jump all of the way into the water and say it?
>
> I don't recall that I made any kind of point about it piquing my
curiosity.
> What of it? Is it not permitted for some reason? In plain English, some
Nixon
> staffers (if not Nixon himself) considered him a dove during the war while
the
> shooting was going on, and now he's clearly a hawk and running the show.
The
> dichotomy certainly does interest me, not to mention the timing of the
change.

Again, fish or cut bait. Have the gonads to say what you really mean instead
of trying to dance around the issue. Either you think his combination of a
complete active duty tour followed by years of reserve service was honorable
or not. I am guessing that if someone were to say, ask you why you felt
hunky-dory flying trash haulers instead of transitioning into combat
aircraft during either Korea or Vietnam you'd (rightfully, IMO) be a bit
testy. But yet you expect a guy who has finished his active duty
committment, and voluntarily stayed on in the reserves for many more years,
willing to answer his country's call *if* it is given, has something to be
ashamed of?

How many drilling Naval reservists were called up to serve in Vietnam? Only
one that I can recall of (the actor, Glenn Ford, did a short tour). Unlike
the army and air force reserve components, which did indeed use reservists,
both on active duty and, in the case of the ANG/USAFR, in reserve status, in
Vietnam, there is no record that i can find of any mobilization of naval
reserve units during the conflict. Why? Because they did not need them, for
one thing.

> >
> >>>
> >>> Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
> >>> involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
> >>> not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
> >>> quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.
> >>>
> >>> I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
> >>> downtown.
> >>
> >> Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of
Kerry over
> >> his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere
near
> >> Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his
contributions,
> >> whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?
> >
> > Kerry's personal service, and the manner in which he obtained his early
> > return from his combat tour, would never have been a subject of
discussion
> > had not he himself tried to impugn the Guard service of the current
> > President. When he did that, he opened the door to the questions of just
how
> > he received not one, not two, but three seperate flesh wounds,
>
> That'd be three more than the President, or anybody half a world away,
got.

So what? Your concern was over the (gasp!) temerity of people questioning
Kerry's service--which would have been unlikely if he had not first opened
the door. And then whined when the issue flopped and questions regarding his
own actions during that timeframe started arising.

>
> > .....and how he actively worked to secure his own early return from the
> theater under a Navy
> > rule that stated an individual who had suffered three wounds of *any*
> > severity level could be returned from the theater, "after consideration
of
> > his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis". It was
not
> > a hard-set three wounds and you are out policy. Now how does that
wording
> > apply to a guy who suffered a grand total of what, one or two lost duty
days
> > for *one* of his three wounds?
>
> He satisfied the published rotation requirements. Anybody who thought
they were
> too generous did a disservice to his fellow servicemen by failing to bring
it up
> at the time.

Two of those wounds with no duty days lost...a whopping *four* month long
tour...and applied himself for that early redeployment...curiouser and
curiouser...

>
> > .....Not to mention the question of whether or not Kerry himself
actually
> performed any reserve duty after his later (again
> > early) release from active duty. As to his contributions...is that what
you
> > call his testifying that US troops were conducting widespread atrocities
> > (using a speech drafted by RFK's former speechwriter, no less, and based
> > upon the since discredited, and Jane Fonda sponsored, "Winter Soldier
> > Investigation" "testimony") and criminal acts, accusations which were
never
> > validated even after further investigation by the services?
>
> Never heard of My Lai, I guess.

My Lai was a terrible stain, and one which we admitted to. WSI has been
rather thoroughly discredited, on the other hand. Actually, the services did
attempt to investigate the accusations made during that little Jane
Fonda-sponsored (yes, she indeed did sponsor that "event") circus, and found
that *none* of the claims panned out--"witnesses" used false identities,
claiming to be combat vets when they were later found not to have been,
stories were created from thin air (one "witness", when approached by
investigators, admitted that his claims had actually been created by his
"Nation of Islam" buddies back here in the states), etc. I'd recommend you
read "Stolen Valor"--rather in-depth coverage of how the WSI just did not
stand up to the facts. But of course you won't read it--it would destroy
your cherished myths.

<snip>

As for his
> testimony, he testified only as to so-called atrocities that he had heard
other
> servicemen testify to under oath,

LOL! No, he used WSI "testimony", which was NOT conducted under any
legitimate oath, and which has been thoroughly discredited. Further, it
turns out his own testimony before that congressional committeee was
actually drafted for him by Adam Walinsky, a former speechwriter for RFK
(see Bukett, who while only discussing Kerry in passing does mention that
little tidbit).

along with his personally taking part in free
> fire zone operations, which he considered to be an atrocity.

Yeah, and he also considered the use of .50 cal machine guns as an
"atrocity"--go figure.

As for reserve
> duty after his early release, I don't remember it being questioned.....I
imagine
> he did about the same as Bush did when he got out of the Texas ANG early.

Nice dodge! Mr. Kerry has questioned the President's duty performance in the
reserves, and folks like you (specifically) have parroted those claims and
requests for *proof* of his drill attendance. But oddly enough, you demand
no proof of Kerry's performance of any required reserve duty during the time
after his own *early release* from active duty. I guess the goose and the
gander get different treatment in your eye, eh?

> >
> >>
> >>> .....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
> >>> kind of service,
> >>
> >> I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both
sides
> >> of the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
> >> sub-category, I gather that you don't have a problem with military
people
> >> who one way or the other avoided the possibility of serving in a
combat
> >> theater? Mr. Rumsfeld might find his name on my list there, not
because he
> >> never got there, but rather because he didn't try when he could have as
> >> opposed to how hawkish and war-like he became subsequently when he was
quite
> >> safely entrenched behind a desk in Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve
> >> outfit in the Washington suburbs.
> >
> > By then he was a reservist who had already done his turn in the active
duty
> > barrel. You get no points for that attack.
>
> That doesn't matter in the least, since that is precisely the
point.....that he
> could have even as a reservist but didn't.

"Could have"? You claim the Navy was so hard up for personnel (especially
former S2 pilots) that they actually needed his active service at that time?
Or that reservists who have already performed an active duty tour, and have
not been called up for further active duty, have some obligation to run out
and yell, "Me, me! Send me!"? You *do* understand that the reason we have
reserve forces is so that people who have normal, full-time civilian
occupations serve their country when *called* upon?

Becoming a hawk isn't hard when you
> know that you won't have to expose yourself to the potentially painful
> possibility of having to pay the price.

Illogical construct. Oddly, I don't recall you attacking Clinton when he
took the rather dove-like Somalia mission and turned it into a "Get Aidid"
fiasco--where was your indignation about Clinton becoming so hawkish in view
of *his* personal military service history?

> >
> >>
> >>> .....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,
> >>
> >> I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't
consider
> >> people who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be
won as
> >> undermining their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only
attempting
> >> to save the lives of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing
war.
> >> I wasn't one of them at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I
can
> >> see where I was wrong and they were right.
> >
> > Whoah. Firstly, Kerry's conversion to raving anti-Vietnam critic came
only
> > after he found he needed an "issue" that would get him some
publicity--read
> > BG Burkett's "Stolen Valor", published (1998) well before the current
> > political campaign began:
> >
> > "Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. Friends
said
> > that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not
> > visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. "I thought of him as a rather
normal
> > vet," a friend said to a reporter, "glad to be out but not terribly
uptight
> > about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his
political
> > ambitions called him "a very charismatic fellow looking for a good
issue."
> >
> > Given his flip-flop on the medals-tossing issue ("They weren't really
> > mine"), this adds up to a man with political ambitions who jumped on the
> > VVAW bandwagon as a way of getting himself recognized, not because he
came
> > home with a burning ambition to get US troops out of Vietnam. Had the
latter
> > been his objective, why did he resort to making unsubstantiated claims
about
> > widespread atrocities?
>
> I don't think the claims he made were unsubstantiated, since they were all
based
> on sworn tesitimony

No, they were not. Please show us where the WSI testimony was "sworn". Then
tell us hwy, when investigators approached those who offered up "testimony"
at WSI, they backtracked and claimed that thier own knowledge was
secondhand, or that they had amde up thier stories. Come on, you have made
the claim that WSI testimony was legit--got anything to back that up?

of returned servicemen who had either participated in those
> activities or had observed others doing those things.

Nope. When asked about it by investigators, they invariably either fell back
upon "well, I *heard* this story...", or even, "well, this guy from Nation
of Islam actually was the one who told me to say that..." Or, even worse,
they founfd that the indivisual in question had never served in combat, or
even in Vietnam. Peruse pages 10-136 of "Stolen Valor" (heck, even a decent
websearch will find articles disputing the validity of WSI).

As for it being
> widespread, I think that would be your characterization of it, not his.
Show me
> a transcript where he's quoted as saying that everybody was doing that
sort of
> stuff. I don't think one exists, but take a stab at it if you think it's
worth
> the effort.

God, you are so *easy*... from his testimony:

"...****not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
with the full awareness of officers at all levels****...We fought using
weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream
of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a
non-third-world people theater..."

Yep, sounds like he is being rather widesoread to me. Interestingly, his
campaign staff now refers to dodge the issue of whether or not Kerry still
stands by the WSI accusations...
"A spokeswoman for Kerry's campaign, Stephanie Cutter, said Friday, "If you
look at that testimony, he was reporting what he had heard at the Winter
Soldier investigations. He was reporting this. Does he stand by what he
heard? Since that day, it has been widely reported that terrible things
happened in Vietnam. If you read the testimony in its entirety, you see that
he was paying great tribute to those who were serving."

www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/forkerry22.htm

Gee, is it just me, or did she never answer her own question , "Does he
stand by what he heard?"

>
> > ....And why did he have that speechwriter draft his testimony?
>
> I don't know why he would do that, if in fact he did.

Adam Walinsky was his name; wrote speeches for RFK. It was no secret that he
and Kerry were close (Kerry, a private pilot, reportedly flew him around to
attend antiwar meetings), and Burkett does include that Walinsky drafted his
testimony, and rehearsed him on it. No denials from the Kerry camp.

Perhaps he just wanted to
> make sure that what he said would be accurate, and not colored by the
emotional
> strain of giving such testimony.

LOL! Yeah, that's a good one--do a Google on "Winter Soldier Investigation"
and then come back and tell me Kerry was seriously concerned about
"accuracy". Geeze.

Brooks

>
> >>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not.
(Those
> >>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
> >>
> >> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list
and
> >> who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing
that?
> >>
> >> George Z.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"D. Strang" > wrote:
>
> >It's just phenomenal the amount of **** in Art's brain.
>
> Even more phenomenal is that he always ends up getting all the
> attention that he so desperately seeks. Just like Tarver,

Why do you bring me into your childishness, Marron?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> > >From: "Pete"
> > >Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2
> >
> > >You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the military
> > >outweigh...
> >
> > The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
> volunteered
> > for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for.
The
> Air
> > Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what they
> > volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for.
Maybe
> some
> > of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
> > possibility?
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
>
> Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
> Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military. There's
> no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
> ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into
an
> aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
> truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
> because his aircraft wasn't involved.

INOP

It took another ten years and a buyout to change things.

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> >JB
> >Bomber Pilot (ret)

> That is the first rational post on the subject yet. Thanks. What did you
fly?

Have some respect Art, Baker is a retired B-one operator. He has posted
here for years and you should be able to remember the aircrew here at ram.
One of those that kept the airplane flying until it could be made to work.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:32:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:

>> I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer a
>> Congressman.
>
> I'm not saying it comes into play, but have you ever heard of "duty
> and travel restsrictions"? Limitations on duty postings for folks who
> have recent experience with certain levels of classified information
> (the sort of thing a congressperson might have.

In all honesty, I hadn't even thought of that. However, do we know that those
restrictions applied in his case or are we just supposing that they might have.
I do have some sort of recollection that there have been elected officials who
have resigned their offices and entered the military during times of war.
Unfortunately, no name comes to mind at the moment.


>> .....AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments
>> made by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
>> considered him far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.
>
> So, are you having a problem with Rumsfeld because he is too hawkish
> or too dovish?

Both....it's the reason or explanation for the change that interests me.

>> Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry over
>> his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere near
>> Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his contributions,
>> whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?
>
> No defense for his contributions at all. Four months in theater of a
> one year tour? Three PHs with no missed duty? Beaching his boat under
> attack, thereby removing his mobility? Going ashore to dispatch a
> wounded peasant already shot with a .50 cal? Then rushing home to tell
> tales about the atrocities being committed wholesale by American
> service men?

I guess if you were his boss, you'd have courts-martialed him. His boss chose
not to. So what purpose is there in your second guessing him? You're hardly
qualified to do that since you were neither a Naval officer nor a competent or
qualified swift boat commander. Do you really think that being a fighter jock
gives you all those skills and aptitudes?

>> I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't consider
>> people who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be won as
>> undermining their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only attempting
>> to save the lives of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing war.
>> I wasn't one of them at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can
>> see where I was wrong and they were right.
>
> A war that "could not be won" not because of lack of military
> capability, but because of lack of political will--primarily as a
> result of a confederation of draft dodging students, moralistic
> professors, attention seeking movie stars and pandering politicians.

You're absolutely correct. It's been said many times that we won every one of
the goddam battles in which we engaged the enemy, but couldn't win the war
because we weren't allowed to.
>
> We could have won the war in '66 when we started to get serious and we
> demonstrably DID end the war in eleven days at the end of '72.
>>
>>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
>>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>>
>> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
>> who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?
>
> Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
> bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
> Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
> experience war.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Every one of those dirty, bearded,
fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled Vietnam vets left this country as clean-cut
American kids. Many of them may well have been volunteers as well. We as a
society are responsible for failing to adequately equip them to cope with the
conditions we were going to throw them into. If they were weak-willed to start
with, they should have been weeded out and not sent there to be destroyed by the
experiences they were exposed to. You can't blame the victims for having become
victims. Who in his right mind would consciously choose to come back so badly
damaged if they could have handled it or otherwise avoided it?

> The incredible majority of warriors are successful
> people who have served their country and lived normal productive
> lives.

Yes, indeed. I think I am one of them and can identify with that definition.

> ......Failure to identify the liars and poseurs is abrogation of my
> responsibility to tell the truth and stand up for what I believe in.

You may wish to deny it, but you still have to accept responsibility for turning
those young Americans into the liars and poseurs you obviously despise. They
didn't arrive in Nam that way for the most part. All I do when I look at them
and what happened to most of them is to count my blessings that something like
that didn't happen to me. A little bit of that kind of humility might stand you
is some good, if you'd allow it to.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:22:16 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> I'm not saying it comes into play, but have you ever heard of "duty
>> and travel restsrictions"? Limitations on duty postings for folks who
>> have recent experience with certain levels of classified information
>> (the sort of thing a congressperson might have.
>
>In all honesty, I hadn't even thought of that. However, do we know that those
>restrictions applied in his case or are we just supposing that they might have.
>I do have some sort of recollection that there have been elected officials who
>have resigned their offices and entered the military during times of war.
>Unfortunately, no name comes to mind at the moment.

My quote above starts with "I'm not saying it comes into play..." IOW,
I don't know but have given a valid possiblity--no more, no less.

And, "some sort of recollection....no names come to mind" does little
to bolster your argument.
>
>
>>> .....AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of comments
>>> made by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
>>> considered him far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.
>>
>> So, are you having a problem with Rumsfeld because he is too hawkish
>> or too dovish?
>
>Both....it's the reason or explanation for the change that interests me.

Maturity, growth in the job, increased understanding, a cataclysmic
attack against the United States....
>
>>> Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of Kerry over
>>> his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere near
>>> Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his contributions,
>>> whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?
>>
>> No defense for his contributions at all. Four months in theater of a
>> one year tour? Three PHs with no missed duty? Beaching his boat under
>> attack, thereby removing his mobility? Going ashore to dispatch a
>> wounded peasant already shot with a .50 cal? Then rushing home to tell
>> tales about the atrocities being committed wholesale by American
>> service men?
>
>I guess if you were his boss, you'd have courts-martialed him. His boss chose
>not to. So what purpose is there in your second guessing him? You're hardly
>qualified to do that since you were neither a Naval officer nor a competent or
>qualified swift boat commander. Do you really think that being a fighter jock
>gives you all those skills and aptitudes?

As a career military officer I know what a PH is and what it requires.
I know what a combat tour of duty was and what it requires. I know
from two COMPLETE tours of duty in the war what the ROE were, what the
responsibilities of an officer are, what integrity is, what a
free-fire zone was, and, surprisingly, what a Swift boat's
capabilities are.
>
>>>> .......and with people who claim to be something that they are not. (Those
>>>> aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)
>>>
>>> And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list and
>>> who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing that?
>>
>> Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
>> bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
>> Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
>> experience war.
>
>Well, that's where you're wrong. Every one of those dirty, bearded,
>fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled Vietnam vets left this country as clean-cut
>American kids.

You are so eager to refute you don't read the statement you are
refuting carefully. "...wannabe who claims to be a Vietnam vet."

You've been pointed several times at Burkett's very relevant work,
"Stolen Valor". You'll find that despite what you read in the liberal
media and the revisionist movie making of Oliver Stone, that the
stereotype is quite false.

In general, those who left this country as "clean-cut American kids"
returned as clean-cut American men.


>Many of them may well have been volunteers as well. We as a
>society are responsible for failing to adequately equip them to cope with the
>conditions we were going to throw them into. If they were weak-willed to start
>with, they should have been weeded out and not sent there to be destroyed by the
>experiences they were exposed to. You can't blame the victims for having become
>victims. Who in his right mind would consciously choose to come back so badly
>damaged if they could have handled it or otherwise avoided it?

We as a society are responsible for nothing of the kind. Individuals
are responsible for themselves. Sherman thought "war is hell" but Lee
said "it is good that war is terrible, lest we come to love it too
much."

The wannabes are not folks who were there--that's the definition of
wannabe! The number of people who today are claiming to have been
SEALs, SF, POWs, decorated warriors, etc, or simply using a made-up
background of participation as excuse for their victimhood is
astonishing.
>
>> ......Failure to identify the liars and poseurs is abrogation of my
>> responsibility to tell the truth and stand up for what I believe in.
>
>You may wish to deny it, but you still have to accept responsibility for turning
>those young Americans into the liars and poseurs you obviously despise. They
>didn't arrive in Nam that way for the most part. All I do when I look at them
>and what happened to most of them is to count my blessings that something like
>that didn't happen to me. A little bit of that kind of humility might stand you
>is some good, if you'd allow it to.

I don't have to accept responsibility for a liar and poseur. You don't
seem to understand that these are not people damaged by an experience,
but damaged people who claim an experience they didn't have!

I've got nothing to be humble about in that regard.



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

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Dave Kearton"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> | In article >,
>
> |
> |
> | So how is Rumsfeld avoiding combat if he's flying ASW duty, but he and
> | his squadronmates were part of a strategic deterresnt against Communist
> | forces?
>
>
> | ASW pilots that sank subs in WWII rarely were shot at in the
> | Atlantic theater -- the weather, distances and aircraft reliability
> | were
> | far more an issue. So is attacking a submerged sub seeing the
> | elephant?
> |
> |
>
>
> Very minor nitpick Howard.
>
>
> ASW crews in the Atlantic were routinely shot at in the latter part of
> the
> war and some were shot down by their quarry.
>
>
> From late '43, the anti submarine weapons became more common and more
> effective. U-boat crews often felt they had a better chance of
> survival
> if they stayed on the surface and engaged the aircraft at over 2,000m
> with
> 20mm and larger.
>

I am aware of Doenitz putting extra AA on some subs, and especially the
Bay of Biscay, but my impression was that while subs hit a few planes,
so many subs were lost quickly that Doenitz quit this quickly. I'm
certainly willing to be corrected on this.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz > wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >Assuming he was an ASW pilot, where would he have seen combat?
> >Certainly, after the WWII ASW people retired, there was no one who saw
> >actual combat in that specialty, except a few Brits at the Falklands.
> >Did lots of ASW pilots participate in pindown, just-short-of-war
> >operations? Without question, in the Cold War.
> >
> >Given that there were no airborne combat with subs between 1945 and
> >1982, how would you get people with experience in the current systems,
> >against a much more capable threat?
>
> You don't need to be firing live ammo, dropping live depth
> charges and torps to get experience in using all the latest
> gadgets and gizmos Howard.
>
> It's a much practiced skill. World wide competitions are held in
> the science by almost every Armed Force in existance.

I agree completely. That's why I question people who say an ASW flight
crew member was "avoiding combat."

>
> Matter of fact you likely get more skill in their use when you
> aren't worried about getting yer goodies blown off. ASW is about
> 99 percent work and skill in detection and localization and 1
> percent in the coup de grace.
>
> Doesn't take a lot of skill to drop a string of 8 mk54's at 50
> foot spacing across a sub from 50 feet when you know exactly
> where he is. Tends to ruin his day too :).
>
> Now, if you wanna have a beer in the mess with him tonight you
> substitute 8 SUS (signals underwater sound) for the Mk 54's and
> do so...
> --
>
> -Gord

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>
>>We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
>>3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
>>lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
>>plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in Japan, the
> last three of which were at Tachikawa.

Yeah I remember you said you were there.

We were in Tachi from ? 1962 through August 1965. My Dad was
LtCol with the 22nd TCS flying the C-124. He retired on coming
home.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>Yes, there is a point in pursuing it. I am demeaned by every dirty,
>>bearded, fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled wannabe who claims to be a
>>Vietnam vet and has become the stereotype of what happens to men who
>>experience war.
>
> Well, that's where you're wrong. Every one of those dirty, bearded,
> fatigue-jacketed, drug-addled Vietnam vets left this country as clean-cut
> American kids. Many of them may well have been volunteers as well. We as a
> society are responsible for failing to adequately equip them to cope with the
> conditions we were going to throw them into. If they were weak-willed to start
> with, they should have been weeded out and not sent there to be destroyed by the
> experiences they were exposed to. You can't blame the victims for having become
> victims. Who in his right mind would consciously choose to come back so badly
> damaged if they could have handled it or otherwise avoided it?

I know some of the type being refered to here and I assure
you, they were pretty much screwed up *before* heading off to
Vietnam. Have no idea what the percentage were and certainly
the war messed up good people.

It's been said military service in general can either straighten
you out or really screw you up!

IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
compared to previous American wars; something like 20 or so for
the Army, as opposed to 24 or so during WWII and perhaps 26-28
for Civil War.

I'm probably off in absolute age values here but my point
is that the American Vietnam war soldier was youngish, and
that might contribute towards combat experience being a more
mind scrambling experience, if indeed Vietnam vets have minds
more scrambled than vets from other wars Americans have fought.

I might add that the treatment of at least some of these Vietnam
vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
not always as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.


SMH

[Jim Baker]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >From: "Jim Baker"
> >Date: 3/7/04 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
> >> >From: "Pete"
> >> >Date: 3/6/04 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <wLy2c.2040$iy.1385@fe2
> >>
> >> >You don't always get to choose/volunteer, and the needs of the
military
> >> >outweigh...
> >>
> >> The Marines who stormed the beaches of the pacific got what they
> >volunteered
> >> for., The airborne that held Bastogne got what they volunteered for.
The
> >Air
> >> Corps that took devastating losses over Berlin and Ploesti got what
they
> >> volunteered for., The Suubmariners got what they volunteered for.
Maybe
> >some
> >> of those who didn't volunteer didn't try hard enough. Think that is a
> >> possibility?
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >Here's a thread within the thread that you may just be ill informed about
> >Art, since it's been 50+ years since you've been in the military.
There's
> >no "volunteering" to go to war in the USAF. You go where your unit is
> >ordered to go. As a pilot, there's almost no chance to cross train into
an
> >aircraft that is flying in a war from one that is not. Take this for the
> >truth it is from someone who served 20 years on active duty and missed DS
> >because his aircraft wasn't involved. There was no where I could go to
> >volunteer, no form I could fill out, to get into that war. Now, if the
war
> >goes on for 5-6 years, you might have a chance...but we've not had one of
> >those in 30+ years, much longer than the normal AF career. So reevaluate
> >your thoughts on this concept you have that only slackers/cowards don't
get
> >into a war...it's incorrect for 30+ years for all instances other than
wars
> >lasting many years.
> >
> >JB
> >Bomber Pilot (ret)
> >
> >
>
>
> That is the first rational post on the subject yet. Thanks. What did you
fly?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Just back from a drive down the coast. What a beautiful day in SoCal.

I flew T-38s, B-52s and B-1Bs.

Another thing I noticed in your posts Art. You have a problem with
Instructor Pilots who haven't been to war. In the USAF of the mid '70s on,
there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
the standards in the syllabus, so their studs could pass their checkride,
and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments. The IPs that
had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many of them were,
where mission qual training was being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
real world. But, c,est la guerre! (sp?)

JB

[D. Strang]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote
>
> It's been said military service in general can either straighten
> you out or really screw you up!

Mostly it screws you up so the "new" liberals in Congress can't
deal with you any more...

[Mike Marron]

>Stephen Harding > wrote:

>Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
>were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Rumsfeld and flying
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 3/7/04 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time

>nother thing I noticed in your posts Art. You have a problem with
>Instructor Pilots who haven't been to war. In the USAF of the mid '70s on,

I have no problem with them at all. But their students might. That is what my
question was about. I was a bombardier navigator (MOS 1035). Pilot training is
totaly out of my expertise.


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

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:22:16 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> I've got nothing to be humble about in that regard.

Of course not.

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
>>> 3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
>>> lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
>>> plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in Japan,
>> the last three of which were at Tachikawa.
>
> Yeah I remember you said you were there.
>
> We were in Tachi from ? 1962 through August 1965. My Dad was
> LtCol with the 22nd TCS flying the C-124. He retired on coming
> home.

After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th TCS, a
tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady, down near
Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the 124s were all
grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our 46s and the 54
squadron were all there was available for intra-theater traffic in and out of
Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a Flying Training Squadron which
eventually turned our aircraft over to the Japan Air Self Defense Force. We had
the distinction of being among the very few AF people in the world who ever flew
airplanes with the Rising Sun insignia on them.

Sorry if I've rambled.....thought you might be interested in some of the stuff
that happened before your time there.

George Z.
>
>
> SMH

[Evan Brennan]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message news:<gTI2c.11947$m4.7266@okepread03>...
> The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
> the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation


Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
landing in North Vietnam -- they were suspicious of and even reluctant
to accept technicians for training and logistics, although obviously
they had to compromise. What Uncle Ho wanted, above everything else,
was all potential foreign interference to get out of Vietnam as soon
as possible.

It's often forgotten that because China and the Soviets armed their
client to the teeth, it assured that Hanoi would not be bullied by
them either. That theory was tested when China tried to invade Vietnam
after the United States pulled out.


"Better to sniff French ****
for a while than to eat China's
for the rest of our lives"
~ Ho Chi Minh

[Cub Driver]

>Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
>landing in North Vietnam -

About 320,000 Chinese served in Vietnam during the "American War", and
they took 5,300 casualties, including 1,100 killed.

About 22,000 Russians served in Vietnam, with one source saying that
18 were killed. Some 885 were pilots, who likely engaged in combat.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

Of the Americans who died in Vietnam, 18.3 percent were 17-19 years
old, 38.5% were 21-22 years, 18.9 percent were 23-24 years, 14.3
percent were 25-29 years, and 10.0 percent were 30 years or older.

So the median was about 21 and a half.

There are no average age figures for those who served; the closest you
can come is to take deaths as a proxy.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[D. Strang]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote
> "D. Strang" > wrote
> >
> > The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
> > the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation
>
> Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
> landing in North Vietnam -- they were suspicious of and even reluctant
> to accept technicians for training and logistics, although obviously
> they had to compromise.

Korea thought the same way. After they lost the war, their
vote didn't count, and the Chicoms came rolling south.

[Stephen Harding]

Mike Marron wrote:

>>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>>Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
>>were "baby killers", to be shunned.
>
> Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
> talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
> friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
> always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
> And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
> slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
> "civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
> Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
emphasis aids to help you properly understand.

> I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
> vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
> _not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
> comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
> but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.

I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
ridicule from ones young aged peers.

The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
in the airport are probably over blown, but unless you lived in a
small town in midwest during that period, or at least not in a well
entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could have it socially rough,
and might want to just keep his mouth shut about the experience.

Glad your Dad had no problems.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Harding wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
>>>>3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
>>>>lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
>>>>plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]
>>>
>>>
>>>Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in Japan,
>>>the last three of which were at Tachikawa.
>>
>>Yeah I remember you said you were there.
>>
>>We were in Tachi from ? 1962 through August 1965. My Dad was
>>LtCol with the 22nd TCS flying the C-124. He retired on coming
>>home.
>
>
> After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th TCS, a
> tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady, down near
> Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the 124s were all
> grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our 46s and the 54
> squadron were all there was available for intra-theater traffic in and out of
> Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a Flying Training Squadron which
> eventually turned our aircraft over to the Japan Air Self Defense Force. We had
> the distinction of being among the very few AF people in the world who ever flew
> airplanes with the Rising Sun insignia on them.
>
> Sorry if I've rambled.....thought you might be interested in some of the stuff
> that happened before your time there.

Not rambling at all! Much appreciated George.

In fact, my Dad flew out of Japan for a while during and after the
Korean War in the time frame you were in and about Tachi. Didn't
know the 124's were around in 1951.

Were there guys flying in the squadron who flew against the Japanese?
I'd presume at least some since this was only 10 years after the war.
Must have been a weird experience for them flying aircraft with the
hinomaru markings.

I'll ask my mother for info as to where my father might have been
flying during the 51-55 time frame. Could be another "small world"
episode in the making!


SMH

[Mike Marron]

>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
>>talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
>>friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
>>always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
>>And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
>>slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
>>"civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
>>Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."

>Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
>emphasis aids to help you properly understand.

This response is not only condescending, but it also shows how little
you know about how the VAST MAJORITY of 'Nam era vets were treated
when they returned to the States.

>>I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
>>vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
>> _not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
>>comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
>>but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.

Yeah yeah yeah. Spare us your whining, sniveling, poor,
poor, downtrodden Vietnam vet don't-get-no-respect crapola.

>I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
>at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
>In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
>the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
>ridicule from ones young aged peers.

We resided in both on and off-base housing in some of the larger
metropolitan areas out west (like Denver) and I can tell ya that with
nary a doubt that wherever my ol' man went he was treated with
nothing but respect by civilians from all walks of life. Hell, even
the local longhaired hoods, the dope smoking neighborhood "bad
boys," respected him cos' deep down they knew he was even
BADDER than they (thought) they were -- regardless if he was
strapped into a supersonic jet fighter or pushing the lawnmower
around the yard on a peaceful Saturday morning.

>The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
>in the airport are probably over blown,

Understatement of the decade. Guess ya just had to know my Dad
to know that any 20-year old unfortunate twerp who dared spit on him
would've promptly ended up either A) flat on his back in the back of
an ambulance, or B) DEAD.

>but unless you lived in a small town in midwest during that period,
>or at least not in a well entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could
>have it socially rough, and might want to just keep his mouth shut
>about the experience.

Actually, those "well entrenched liberal areas" you speak of were in
the minority and the overwhelming majority of self-respecting Vietnam
vets could go anywhere and say anything he damn pleased be it
Berkley Calif on the left coast or up there in that liberal no-man's
land of New England where you're apparently from.

>Glad your Dad had no problems.

Sheeeeiit.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
> >>Korean vets were largely forgotten about, but Vietnam vets
> >>were "baby killers", to be shunned.
> >
> > Such crap. When Dad came back from SEA, he rarely if ever
> > talked about it, but he was never ever shunned. On the contrary,
> > friends, relatives, even my junior and high school teachers were
> > always wanting to pick his brains about his experiences in 'Nam.
> > And when he was invited to discuss the war and show off his Kodak
> > slides of his wonderful, uhh, "humanitarian" work helping to [ahem]
> > "civilize" the local "natives" (via his camouflaged, napalm-laden
> > Skyraider) it was like the old phrase, "When EF Hutton talks..."
>
> Not crap at all. Here's the context of what I wrote with some
> emphasis aids to help you properly understand.
>
> > I might add that the treatment of _at least some_ of these Vietnam
> > vets by their peers (the *important* people in their lives) was
> > _not always_ as favorable as it ought to have been, especially in
> > comparison with WWII. Korean vets were largely forgotten about,
> > but Vietnam vets were "baby killers", to be shunned.
>
> I personally know some people who were rudely treated by females
> at dances and parties when their Vietnam vet status was learned.
> In the area I live, just having a military style haircut during
> the late 60's - early 70's could provoke wry smiles of quiet
> ridicule from ones young aged peers.
>
> The stories of returning vets being spit on by fellow 20 year olds
> in the airport are probably over blown, but unless you lived in a
> small town in midwest during that period, or at least not in a well
> entrenched liberal area, a Vietnam vet could have it socially rough,
> and might want to just keep his mouth shut about the experience.

While he was not spit at, my brother always recalled his return to the
states. He had flown into one of the West coast airports and went into one
of the airport bars to grab a drink. Sat down at a table, and the couple
(youngish) sitting at the next table took in his khaki uniform, gave him a
nasty look, and got up and relocated to a table further away while muttering
insults. Kind of surprised him. But the bartender saw what had happened,
came out and walked over to his table and asked him if he had just gotten
back from Vietnam. Larry said yeah, he had, wondering what *this guy* was
going to have to say about it. The bartender told him (in a loud enough
voice for the couple to hear), "Welcome back, your drinks are on the house,
and don't pay any attention to how *some* people act around here", or words
to that effect. So in one short period of time he experienced both extremes
of treatment.

Brooks

>
> Glad your Dad had no problems.
>
>
> SMH
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
>
> >IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young

25 WWII
21 Korea
19 Vietnam

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:

Hush Marron, you never served.

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>> George Z. Bush wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We ended up being stationed in Tachikawa, Japan with him for
>>>>> 3 years and got there via SS President Roosevelt, a President
>>>>> lines luxury cruise ship (without Dad since he had to fly the
>>>>> plane there)! My mother should have spoken up much earlier!]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, when were you there? I spent amost 4 years in
>>>> Japan, the last three of which were at Tachikawa.
>>>
>>> Yeah I remember you said you were there.
>>>
>>> We were in Tachi from ? 1962 through August 1965. My Dad was
>>> LtCol with the 22nd TCS flying the C-124. He retired on coming
>>> home.
>>
>>
>> After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th TCS,
>> a tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady, down near
>> Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the 124s were all
>> grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our 46s and the 54
>> squadron were all there was available for intra-theater traffic in and out of
>> Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a Flying Training Squadron
>> which eventually turned our aircraft over to the Japan Air Self Defense
>> Force. We had the distinction of being among the very few AF people in the
>> world who ever flew airplanes with the Rising Sun insignia on them.
>>
>> Sorry if I've rambled.....thought you might be interested in some of the
>> stuff that happened before your time there.
>
> Not rambling at all! Much appreciated George.
>
> In fact, my Dad flew out of Japan for a while during and after the
> Korean War in the time frame you were in and about Tachi. Didn't
> know the 124's were around in 1951.

They certainly were. Originally (before my time), the entire TCWg at Tachi was
a C-54 unit. I think they replaced three 54 squadrons with two 124 units,
obviously with no loss of airlift capability.

I was on base at the time one of the 124s crashed on the outskirts of the base,
with a loss of 129 souls. It was the worst air disaster in Japanese history up
till then. Did you ever hear anything about that one?
>
> Were there guys flying in the squadron who flew against the Japanese?
> I'd presume at least some since this was only 10 years after the war.
> Must have been a weird experience for them flying aircraft with the
> hinomaru markings.

It was weird, whether or not you flew against the Japanese. I know that it felt
awfully strange to me even though I had flown in Italy during WWII. It must
have been more so for those who flew in the Pacific theater.
>
> I'll ask my mother for info as to where my father might have been
> flying during the 51-55 time frame. Could be another "small world"
> episode in the making!

Please do....who knows where our paths may have crossed?

George Z.

[Jeff Crowell]

Mike Marron wrote:
> Yeah yeah yeah. Spare us your whining, sniveling, poor,
> poor, downtrodden Vietnam vet don't-get-no-respect crapola.

Well Mike, I'm glad your Dad didn't catch any grief. But
it did happen, even post-VN. I joined in '77 and caught
far more grief than this green 18-yo country boy expected
or was prepared to receive, this in DC and Maryland.
Especially in airports, when traveling in uniform. Particularly
the first couple of years.

Never had a hint of trouble west of there.


Jeff

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>I'll ask my mother for info as to where my father might have been
>>flying during the 51-55 time frame. Could be another "small world"
>>episode in the making!
>
> Please do....who knows where our paths may have crossed?

Hey George, my mother directed me towards a mug my father
got sometime in 1953-54 for us two (at the time) kids.

It has my name "Steve" on it along with the Japanese equivalent
(I presume) under it. A red seal with a yellow bee in leather
flying helmet and goggles, carrying something with each pair of
its legs, and a star and bar emblem under one of its wings. A
banner under the seal says "21st Troop Carrier Squadron". On the
back a C-54 is pictured with "Bee liners" under it.

He obtained this while stationed at Tachi in the 53-54 time
period, but apparently was also in the various Japanese bases
you mentioned too from time to time.

What I found especially interesting is that he was basically
"commuting to work". Used Japan as a base and running stuff
back and forth (and everywhere) from Korea and I think focused
on helping out the French in Indochina at the time.

Is this what you were doing too? Of course the hop to Korea
from Japan isn't especially large. A bit more of a haul to
Vietnam. I think it's very likely you guys crossed each
others paths at the time.


SMH

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
>
>25 WWII
>21 Korea
>19 Vietnam
>

Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
the numbers in print.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.


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

[Stephen Harding]

Mike Marron wrote:

> Actually, those "well entrenched liberal areas" you speak of were in
> the minority and the overwhelming majority of self-respecting Vietnam
> vets could go anywhere and say anything he damn pleased be it
> Berkley Calif on the left coast or up there in that liberal no-man's
> land of New England where you're apparently from.
>
>>Glad your Dad had no problems.
>
> Sheeeeiit.

Ya know Mike, you have a way with words that makes both the
white *and* black parts of what you write almost not worth
a look.

Alas I have yet to killfile anyone and I'll be damned if I
let you inspire me to start doing so.

But you've come about as close as anyone. Congrats to ya.


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
> >
> >25 WWII
> >21 Korea
> >19 Vietnam

> Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
> debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
> the numbers in print.
>
> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

I'll have to take your word for it, but the leaving home of the Guard, the
age of Draft and many Volenteering for a senior trip in their late teens
makes it nearly a statistical impossibility for the Vietnam conflict to have
older soldiers than Korea.

[Ron]

>It has my name "Steve" on it along with the Japanese equivalent
>(I presume) under it. A red seal with a yellow bee in leather
>flying helmet and goggles, carrying something with each pair of
>its legs, and a star and bar emblem under one of its wings. A
>banner under the seal says "21st Troop Carrier Squadron". On the
>back a C-54 is pictured with "Bee liners" under it.
>
>He obtained this while stationed at Tachi in the 53-54 time
>period, but apparently was also in the various Japanese bases
>you mentioned too from time to time.

And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Cub Driver]

>Glad your Dad had no problems.

To judge by what you quoted from the gent's post, Dad did indeed have
a problem, in the form of his son.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Stephen Harding > wrote:

>Ya know Mike, you have a way with words that makes both the
>white *and* black parts of what you write almost not worth
>a look.

>Alas I have yet to killfile anyone and I'll be damned if I
>let you inspire me to start doing so.

>But you've come about as close as anyone. Congrats to ya.

Can't stomach the taste of your own medicine, Harding?
Hint: Your latest condescension, on top of your previous slings
and barbs aimed my way.

[George Z. Bush]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
> > Stephen Harding wrote:
> >
> >>I'll ask my mother for info as to where my father might have been
> >>flying during the 51-55 time frame. Could be another "small world"
> >>episode in the making!
> >
> > Please do....who knows where our paths may have crossed?
>
> Hey George, my mother directed me towards a mug my father
> got sometime in 1953-54 for us two (at the time) kids.
>
> It has my name "Steve" on it along with the Japanese equivalent
> (I presume) under it. A red seal with a yellow bee in leather
> flying helmet and goggles, carrying something with each pair of
> its legs, and a star and bar emblem under one of its wings. A
> banner under the seal says "21st Troop Carrier Squadron". On the
> back a C-54 is pictured with "Bee liners" under it.

I still have a few of those kinds of mugs we all had made while we were there.
Mine had a USAF insignia on one side, and the words "344th Troop Carrier
Squadron" and "Fat Cats" around a cartoon depiction of a smiling pot bellied cat
slouched in a chair holding onto a cocktail glass. A half century later, I
still have a few of them left and occasionally have a beer in one and smile as I
drink from it.
>
> He obtained this while stationed at Tachi in the 53-54 time
> period, but apparently was also in the various Japanese bases
> you mentioned too from time to time.
>
> What I found especially interesting is that he was basically
> "commuting to work". Used Japan as a base and running stuff
> back and forth (and everywhere) from Korea and I think focused
> on helping out the French in Indochina at the time.
>
> Is this what you were doing too? Of course the hop to Korea
> from Japan isn't especially large. A bit more of a haul to
> Vietnam. I think it's very likely you guys crossed each
> others paths at the time.

We also used to do that kind of stuff. We were in and out of Korea almost on a
daily basis, and sometimes to some of the smaller, hairier places where 4 engine
planes wouldn't safely fit. When I first got there, the vast preponderence of
our flights were into and out of Korea. Later on, we also got some of the
intra-Japan traffic, as well as flights to Okinawa, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
Although I never went on one of those flights, we also used to have flights to
Hanoi by way of Taiwan. As I recall, we had to cover up our USAF insignia
before departing home base, and our aircrews always wore civilian clothing.

Interesting times, those. BTW, we used to import fresh fruit and veggies from
Taiwan, and learned from that that Taiwanese pineapples were as good as if not
better than the Hawaiian variety.

George Z.

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:

>To judge by what you quoted from the gent's post, Dad did indeed have
>a problem, in the form of his son.

He wouldn't of had it any other way. Besides, I was nothing compared
to the problem he would've had in the form of faceless assholes on
RAM whom he didn't even know. ;)

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >It has my name "Steve" on it along with the Japanese equivalent
> >(I presume) under it. A red seal with a yellow bee in leather
> >flying helmet and goggles, carrying something with each pair of
> >its legs, and a star and bar emblem under one of its wings. A
> >banner under the seal says "21st Troop Carrier Squadron". On the
> >back a C-54 is pictured with "Bee liners" under it.
> >
> >He obtained this while stationed at Tachi in the 53-54 time
> >period, but apparently was also in the various Japanese bases
> >you mentioned too from time to time.
>
> And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.

I flew HC-54s during an Air Rescue assignment at Lajes Field, Azores in the
early 60s. Good airplane. I envy you .

George Z.

[Mike Marron]

> (Ron) wrote:

>And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.

Sure now are ya that a month is long to get ready? ;)

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
>>
>>25 WWII
>>21 Korea
>>19 Vietnam

>
> Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
> debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
> the numbers in print.
>
> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
be as many of them.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Ron wrote:

>>It has my name "Steve" on it along with the Japanese equivalent
>>(I presume) under it. A red seal with a yellow bee in leather
>>flying helmet and goggles, carrying something with each pair of
>>its legs, and a star and bar emblem under one of its wings. A
>>banner under the seal says "21st Troop Carrier Squadron". On the
>>back a C-54 is pictured with "Bee liners" under it.
>>
>>He obtained this while stationed at Tachi in the 53-54 time
>>period, but apparently was also in the various Japanese bases
>>you mentioned too from time to time.
>
> And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.

Well hang in there!

You might get upgraded to C-124s yet!


SMH

[Mike Marron]

> (Ron) wrote:

>And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.

Sure now are ya that a month is long enough to get ready? ;)

[Ron W]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> >> After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th
TCS,
> >> a tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady,
down near
> >> Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the 124s were
all
> >> grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our 46s and
the 54
> >> squadron were all there was available for intra-theater traffic in and
out of
> >> Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a Flying Training
Squadron
> >> which eventually turned our aircraft over to the Japan Air Self Defense
> >> Force. We had the distinction of being among the very few AF people in
the
> >> world who ever flew airplanes with the Rising Sun insignia on them

Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!


> They certainly were. Originally (before my time), the entire TCWg at
Tachi was
> a C-54 unit. I think they replaced three 54 squadrons with two 124 units,
> obviously with no loss of airlift capability.
>
> I was on base at the time one of the 124s crashed on the outskirts of the
base,
> with a loss of 129 souls. It was the worst air disaster in Japanese
history up
> till then. Did you ever hear anything about that one?

I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.When I
was leaving Larson AFB in Dec 53 for flying school, a 124 crashed after take
off. The control lock were still on. I was an RO
in the 56th FIS then.

Were you there when a Tachi staffer landed the C-47 on the top of
Mt. Fuji? The first time I pulled AO, another Tachi staffer landed at
Yokota rather than Tachi, and even pulled up to base ops. He said he
thought the building looked different. We had a number of touch
and go's. since, as you re-call, the runways were 3mi(?) apart and
in line.

Ron

[Ron]

>And here I am, 50 years later, getting ready to fly a C-54 next month.
>
>Sure now are ya that a month is long enough to get ready? ;)

Ha, I think so. I have the flight manuals now and have been studying those.
Sure are a lot of systems to learn.

But hey, it will be the first plane I have ever flown with TCAS!

And a 2000 gallon slurry tank too.



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Ron]

>Well hang in there!
>
>You might get upgraded to C-124s yet!

Would be interesting to fly Old Shakey, but I think the fires would be out
before I ever got there in it :)

There have been some KC-97s flying on fires, not sure if any will fly this
year.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Mike Marron]

> (Ron) wrote:

>Ha, I think so. I have the flight manuals now and have been studying those.
>Sure are a lot of systems to learn.

>But hey, it will be the first plane I have ever flown with TCAS!

>And a 2000 gallon slurry tank too.

Since off-topic political discussions are common on this NG and
also because we've drifted somewhat off-topic into Part 135 ops,
perhaps you (and every other freedom-loving RAM reader who
cares to) could file your comments electronically to the FAA's latest
draconian "Air Tour" proposal. Just a quick, short response telling
the feds to leave the regs as they are presently will suffice.

Simply stated, the Air Tour NPRM would outlaw the ability of
commercial pilots to give sightseeing tours in everything from
short helicopter flights to scenic sunset tours in bi-wing Wacos!!

All sightseeing flights would have to be conducted under FAR Part
135, which is the same regulations governing charter airlines. As you
and I both know, it takes *hundreds* of hours to qualify as a Part 135
pilot not to mention Part 135 ops require reams of paperwork, a flight
manual, a maintenance manual, a "Chief Pilot," a "Check Airman,"
and "Chief Mechanic," and frequent proficiency check flights.

An excellent article entitled, "Save the Sightseeing Flights,"
published by the Aviation Foundation of America, may be seen
at: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

The FAA has published unofficial comments and discussions on
the Air Tour NPRM on a "Public Meeting Forum" at: http://66.89.54.45/.

And you may file your comments electronically at:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=4521&searchTyp
e=docket.

For those who enjoy those scenic little sunset flights originating
from your local hometown airport, don't put this off as the deadline
to comment is April 19, 2004.

[Ron]

>
>>Ha, I think so. I have the flight manuals now and have been studying those.
>
>>Sure are a lot of systems to learn.
>
>>But hey, it will be the first plane I have ever flown with TCAS!
>
>>And a 2000 gallon slurry tank too.
>
>Since off-topic political discussions are common on this NG and
>also because we've drifted somewhat off-topic into Part 135 ops,
>perhaps you (and every other freedom-loving RAM reader who
>cares to) could file your comments electronically to the FAA's latest
>draconian "Air Tour" proposal. Just a quick, short response telling
>the feds to leave the regs as they are presently will suffice.
>
>Simply stated, the Air Tour NPRM would outlaw the ability of
>commercial pilots to give sightseeing tours in everything from
>short helicopter flights to scenic sunset tours in bi-wing Wacos!!
>
>All sightseeing flights would have to be conducted under FAR Part
>135, which is the same regulations governing charter airlines. As you
>and I both know, it takes *hundreds* of hours to qualify as a Part 135
>pilot not to mention Part 135 ops require reams of paperwork,

Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part 135 as a
safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135 already.

The C-54 will be under restricted category I think.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Mike Marron]

(Ron) wrote:

>Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part 135 as a
>safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135 already.

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ron W wrote:
> Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
> WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
> bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
> the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
> power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
> stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!


You want to explain that again? I'm having trouble getting a mental picture of
what you did. You grind the nose on the runway, then lower the gear? After
grinding, then you flare? I'm missing something.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Ron]

>>Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part 135 as
>a
>>safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
>already.
>
>Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
>eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
>giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
>172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
>eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
>my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
>Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
>nail in the coffin for GA.
>
>Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html
>

Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it all
under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they are
using is rather faulty.
Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >>Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part
135 as
> >a
> >>safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
> >already.
> >
> >Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
> >eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
> >giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
> >172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
> >eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
> >my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
> >Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
> >nail in the coffin for GA.
> >
> >Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html
> >
>
> Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.
>
> I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it
all
> under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they
are
> using is rather faulty.

The safest airplane is on that is parked.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
> >>
> >>25 WWII
> >>21 Korea
> >>19 Vietnam
>
> >
> > Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
> > debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
> > the numbers in print.
> >
> > Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
>
> Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?
>
> I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
> personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
> be as many of them.

From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
that of WWII.

He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
(false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

Brooks

>
>
> SMH
>

[Mike Marron]

> (Ron) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
>>eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
>>giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
>>172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
>>eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
>>my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
>>Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
>>nail in the coffin for GA.

>>Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

>Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

>I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it all
>under part 135 it sounds like.

Exactly. This is one of the most draconian proposals since 1997, when
the FAA "modified" FAR Part 61 pilot training regulations.

>I think it is bogus and the reasoning they are using is rather faulty.

Changing the sightseeing rules is not necessary and would not
enhance safety. Everyone will be effected by this rule, INCLUDING
military pilots. Why? Because most military pilots are also FAA
certified pilots and the more people whom are discouraged from
becoming pilots, the less military flying clubs there will be, less
flight instructors, fewer students, fewer airplanes sold (making each
one more expensive,) less insurance available (and, again, more
expensive,) fewer aviation accessories sold (like radios and GPS's
that warbirds use not to mention that neato TCAS unit in your 50-year
old DC-4) and more politicians and developers who want to sub-divide
"under-utilized airports." If you think it's bogus, don't hesitate to
tell the FAA but do it before the deadline on APRIL 19.

Once again, here is the link: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> > > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
> > >>
> > >>25 WWII
> > >>21 Korea
> > >>19 Vietnam
> >
> > >
> > > Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
> > > debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
> > > the numbers in print.
> > >
> > > Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
> >
> > Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?
> >
> > I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
> > personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
> > be as many of them.
>
> From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
> was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old.

I was only counting combat soldiers, like the thread title.

Ed may very well be correct for some different criterion.

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
>>>>
>>>> 25 WWII
>>>> 21 Korea
>>>> 19 Vietnam
>>
>>>
>>> Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
>>> debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
>>> the numbers in print.
>>>
>>> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
>>
>> Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?
>>
>> I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
>> personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
>> be as many of them.
>
> From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in Vietnam
> was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably understaes
> the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
> faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy veterans,
> not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in original)
> age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
> other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
> don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all of
> those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the ages of
> those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average age
> of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different from
> that of WWII.
>
> He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
> personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden (false--in
> actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which only
> accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
> losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
> including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most of
> those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the percentage
> being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at 97%
> and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
> (false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young black
> draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen year
> old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
> unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
> 1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
> WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
> our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
> should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
> draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
> WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).
>
> Brooks

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into any
subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Ron W wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> After my time. I was there from '51 through '55. I was with the 344th
>>>> TCS, a tenant outfit flying C-46s. The rest of my outfit were at Brady,
>>>> down near Fukuoka (Kyushu). We moved up to Tachi in Dec. '51, when the
>>>> 124s were all grounded due to inflight generator fires. For a while, our
>>>> 46s and the 54 squadron were all there was available for intra-theater
>>>> traffic in and out of Tachi. The 344th deactivated in '55 and became a
>>>> Flying Training Squadron which eventually turned our aircraft over to the
>>>> Japan Air Self Defense Force. We had the distinction of being among the
>>>> very few AF people in the world who ever flew airplanes with the Rising
>>>> Sun insignia on them
>
> Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
> WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
> bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
> the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
> power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
> stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!

How could we forget you guys at Yokota? Every time you were getting ready to
drop some iron on NK, the preflight noise would start up at about midnight or
so, and there was no way to hide it, and we'd be waiting for the news later in
the day praying that you hadn't had to leave any behind up there.
>
>
>> They certainly were. Originally (before my time), the entire TCWg at Tachi
>> was a C-54 unit. I think they replaced three 54 squadrons with two 124
>> units, obviously with no loss of airlift capability.
>>
>> I was on base at the time one of the 124s crashed on the outskirts of the
>> base, with a loss of 129 souls. It was the worst air disaster in Japanese
>> history up till then. Did you ever hear anything about that one?
>
> I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
> I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.

Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar. It
wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they were just
****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had available to
them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they had to pay for
losing the war, they got off scot free.

> ...When I
> was leaving Larson AFB in Dec 53 for flying school, a 124 crashed after take
> off. The control lock were still on. I was an RO
> in the 56th FIS then.

I once flew a gooney bird from Naples to Nice, France with an aileron lock still
on. No harm done, but it sure was an uncordinated flight experience.
>
> Were you there when a Tachi staffer landed the C-47 on the top of
> Mt. Fuji?

I think the word was, when I heard about it, that that was one of those rare
gooney bird landings that nobody walked away from. Actually, one of the guys in
my squadron turned north at one of those islands in Tokyo Bay that had those
strong magnetic anomelies on it thinking he was at the Oshima beacon, and ended
up leaving about ten feet of C-46 wing near the top of Fuji, but he was able to
get back to base without further damage. I still remember his name, but I don't
think I want to give it to you because he (or his family) might suffer some
embarrassment from it. All I will say is that he was a Sergeant in the NYC
Police Department who had been recalled to AD with my AFRes outfit, and he never
lived it down as long as he was with us.

> ......The first time I pulled AO, another Tachi staffer landed at
> Yokota rather than Tachi, and even pulled up to base ops. He said he
> thought the building looked different. We had a number of touch
> and go's. since, as you re-call, the runways were 3mi(?) apart and
> in line.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:22:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:37:53 -0500, Stephen Harding
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> IIRC, the average age of the Vietnam grunt was quite young
> >>>>
> >>>> 25 WWII
> >>>> 21 Korea
> >>>> 19 Vietnam
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Might I direct you to "Stolen Valor" as well. Burkett effectively
> >>> debunks the legend of the 19 year old average for Vietnam. He's got
> >>> the numbers in print.
> >>>
> >>> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
> >>
> >> Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?
> >>
> >> I would assume that if you include aviators and specialty
> >> personnel, you'd up the average, even though there wouldn't
> >> be as many of them.
> >
> > From the same work that Ed cited: "The average age of men killed in
Vietnam
> > was 22.8 years, or almost twenty-three years old. This probably
understaes
> > the average age of those in ietnam by several months, because those who
> > faced the enmy in combat roles typically were the younger, healthy
veterans,
> > not the older career soldiers. While the *average* (emphasis in
original)
> > age of those killed was 22.8, more twenty year olds were killed than any
> > other age, followed by twenty-one year olds, then nineteen year olds." I
> > don't know of any reputable database that actually has the ages of all
of
> > those who *served* in Vietnam, and Burkett's analysis based upon the
ages of
> > those who died seems to be logical. His conclusion is that the average
age
> > of the soldiers who served in Vietnam was not significantly different
from
> > that of WWII.
> >
> > He goes on to point out some other common misconceptions, like: enlisted
> > personnel suffered a disproportionat share of the casualty burden
(false--in
> > actuality, 13.5 percent of fatalities were from the officer side, which
only
> > accounted for 12.5 percent of those who served in theater, with the Army
> > losing a higher ratio of officers in Vietnam than it did during WWII,
> > including no less than 12 general officers); draftees accounted for most
of
> > those KIA (false--77 percent of the KIA were volunteers, with the
percentage
> > being even higher for the eighteen and nineteen year old age brackets at
97%
> > and 86% respectively); thousands of eighteen year old draftees died
> > (false--only 101 draftees in that age group died in Vietnam); young
black
> > draftees died at a greater rate than others (false--of those eighteen
year
> > old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
> > unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
> > 1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
> > WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
> > our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
> > should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
> > draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
> > WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).
> >
> > Brooks
>
> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any
> subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Jeff Crowell"
> wrote:

> Mike Marron wrote:
> > Yeah yeah yeah. Spare us your whining, sniveling, poor,
> > poor, downtrodden Vietnam vet don't-get-no-respect crapola.
>
> Well Mike, I'm glad your Dad didn't catch any grief. But
> it did happen, even post-VN. I joined in '77 and caught
> far more grief than this green 18-yo country boy expected
> or was prepared to receive, this in DC and Maryland.
> Especially in airports, when traveling in uniform. Particularly
> the first couple of years.
>
> Never had a hint of trouble west of there.
>

Funny how USENET leads to flashbacks. I remember being in Washington
National Airport when some uniformed troops, disembarking into our gate
area, and a few protesters indeed started to scream and spit.

There wasn't a word said, but I'd guess 20 people, including me, got up
and formed a human wall between the returnees and the demonstrators.
Again without a word, most of us made eye contact with the
demonstrators, and then turned our backs on them.

Not everything was so dramatic at National, though. I cherish the memory
of one nubile young solicitor -- could have been a Moonie, could have
been LaRouche -- who tried to pin a flower on me and get a donation. I
smiled cheerfully at her as I munched on the flower, offering her a
bite, commenting it was delicious, and encouraging her to tell me more
about her cause.

For some reason, she ran away, dropping leaflets and making strange
noises. Her loss...white carnations don't taste half bad...

[Evan Brennan]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
> >landing in North Vietnam -
>
> About 320,000 Chinese served in Vietnam during the "American War"


Yeah, but not all at once. I know they got bombed in the North and Laos.

[Evan Brennan]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message news:<JxZ2c.14631$m4.9693@okepread03>...
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote
> > "D. Strang" > wrote
> > >
> > > The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
> > > the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation
> >
> > Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
> > landing in North Vietnam -- they were suspicious of and even reluctant
> > to accept technicians for training and logistics, although obviously
> > they had to compromise.
>
> Korea thought the same way. After they lost the war, their
> vote didn't count, and the Chicoms came rolling south.


Then they went rolling North.

[Cub Driver]

>>
>> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
>
>Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

There is no way to calculate the age of soldiers in Vietnam. (Think
about it for a while.) The average age of those who died was about
21.5.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stephen Harding]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

> old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
> unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
> 1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
> WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
> our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

> should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
> draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
> WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> Ron W wrote:
>>
>>I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
>>I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.
>
> Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar. It
> wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they were just
> ****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had available to
> them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they had to pay for
> losing the war, they got off scot free.

In the '62-'65 period, there used to be scheduled "riots"
outside the main gate at Tachi. I think driven mostly by
the local communist party. "Rioters" allegedly got paid for
the level of mayhem they caused.

Sometime during the 64-65 period I think the F-105s moved in
to Yokota. You could hear them winding up for takeoff.
Protesters outside both Tachi and Yokota by some of the local
Commies, carried signs saying "F-105 Go Home".

Of course the C-124s put out a lot of racket too when the
squadron cranked up to go somewhere en masse (Vietnam mostly).

Was there a stoplight at the start/end of the runway that went
red when an aircraft was landing or taking off? Right at the
fence. Always thought that was sooo cool when on my bike riding
the base perimeter!


SMH

[Nick G]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part
> 135 as
> a
> > >>safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
> > >already.
> > >
> > >Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
> > >eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
> > >giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
> > >172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
> > >eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
> > >my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
> > >Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
> > >nail in the coffin for GA.
> > >
> > >Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.
> >
> > I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it
> all
> > under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they
> are
> > using is rather faulty.
>
> The safest airplane is on that is parked.

The most intelligent Tarver Post is the one that never happened.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> [snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]
>
> > old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
> > unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
> > 1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
> > WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
> > our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
>
> One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
> even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
> between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
> War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
> War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
> The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
> known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.
>
> I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
> nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
> these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
> Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
> seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
> perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
> public opinion???

I'd suspect it had more to do with the usual economic slump that tends to
follow such an event. Unemployment was on the rise, estimated commerce was
flatlined. The commerce and GNP numbers would take off again a year or two
later, but the unemployment numbers continued to rise rather sharply, more
than doubling from the 1945 estimate of 1.3% to 3.8% in '47, then almost
again to 6.4% in 1949.

>
> > should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
> > draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
> > WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).
>
> This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
> The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
> the draftee proportion to be high.
>
> Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
> but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.

It is a rather interesting read--don't take the wrong idea from the
aforementioned dry statistics. Burkett and his coauthor Whitley exposed
quite a few charlatan Vietnam vets and "heroes". I happened to be surfing
through the TV channels this weekend and watched a bit of the original
"First Blood". Burkett's book game me a new way of looking at that movie--I
had known that Stallone had neatly avoided military service during the war,
but I was surprised to learn that Brian Dennehy, who played the Sheriff,
apparently had a propensity for blowing a bit of smoke about his own
military service (he has claimed to have been a Vietnam vet, but in
actuality he served on Okinawa in the USMC *before* the US sent major ground
forces into the conflict).

Brooks
>
>
> SMH
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.
> >
> >Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?
>
> There is no way to calculate the age of soldiers in Vietnam. (Think
> about it for a while.) The average age of those who died was about
> 21.5.

Burkett indicates the actual average age for those killed was 22.8.

Brooks

>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into
>> any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
>>
>> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))
>
> Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
> veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
> job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
> about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
> local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
> myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> Ron W wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
>>> I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.
>>
>> Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar.
>> It wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they
>> were just ****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had
>> available to them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they
>> had to pay for losing the war, they got off scot free.
>
> In the '62-'65 period, there used to be scheduled "riots"
> outside the main gate at Tachi. I think driven mostly by
> the local communist party. "Rioters" allegedly got paid for
> the level of mayhem they caused.
>
> Sometime during the 64-65 period I think the F-105s moved in
> to Yokota. You could hear them winding up for takeoff.
> Protesters outside both Tachi and Yokota by some of the local
> Commies, carried signs saying "F-105 Go Home".
>
> Of course the C-124s put out a lot of racket too when the
> squadron cranked up to go somewhere en masse (Vietnam mostly).
>
> Was there a stoplight at the start/end of the runway that went
> red when an aircraft was landing or taking off? Right at the
> fence. Always thought that was sooo cool when on my bike riding
> the base perimeter!

Yep, even back in my time. There also was a sign near where that road ran by a
fuel dump of some sort that said "Speed Limit 5mph". My wife actually got a
ticket for doing 15 in that area. Worse than that, she actually got chewed out
by my boss (dumb **** that he was) for that egregious behavior.

George Z.
>
>
> SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into
> >> any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
> >>
> >> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))
> >
> > Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
> > veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
> > job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
> > about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
> > local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
> > myths--which will it be?
>
> I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Ron W]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Ron W wrote:
> > Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
> > WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
> > bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
> > the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
> > power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
> > stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!
>
>
> You want to explain that again? I'm having trouble getting a mental
picture of
> what you did. You grind the nose on the runway, then lower the gear?
After
> grinding, then you flare? I'm missing something.

Sorry I guess I was a little too terse. We flew our final at 800 ft
altitude above ground, (IIRC) until the nose of the a/c just passed
over the end of the runway below, then chopped power, etc, and
flared out of the rather steep end of the final approach.. We didn't
grind anything along the runway if we did things right. Remember during the
air lift, they were hauling loads onto relativly short runways surrounded by
buildings. Their approaches needed to be steep! We
certainly didn't need to did this at Yokota, but the demonstration was
an effective learning tool, if it was needed else where!

When we returned from our weather recce missions off the eastern
coast of Japan we would head for Oshima Island in Tokyo Bay and
with the approval of flight control, again chop power, lower gear,&
flaps with cowl flaps open wide. Airspeed was controlled with the
angle of the dive, again quite steep. The FE maintained engine temps
with a little throttle and cowl adjustments. After using this as a method of
rapid descent in the WB-29's and 50's, the steep final approach in the C-54
wasn't too disconcerting. Exept we were leveling out at about 3000 ft
rather than just above the runway as with the C-54.

During primary, my instructer liked to lose altitude with spins. I
became fairly proficient as most other instructors didn't spin the
T-6 that frequently. I contrast, my ex crop-sprayer T-28 instructor
hated spins, After I successfully demonstrated I could recover, I had
to spin on my solo's if I want to continue. Spining the B-20/50 and
the C-54 wasn't recomended, though I understand a number of 4-engine
a/c, such as B-17's were recovered from spins in WWII

Good luck with the C-54. I enjoyed the short time I spent in in.

Ron

[me]

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> [snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]
>
> > old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
> > unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
> > 1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
> > WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
> > our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art
>
> One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
> even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
> between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
> War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
> War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
> The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
> known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.
[snip]

The truth is that most wars in the US have been relatively
unpopular, and poorly viewed by history as well. WWII was probably
the lone exception. It's probably "improved" with age.

The US started out with a fairly isolationist tradition
and wars tended to be ones of expansion, which weren't always
popular everywhere. The Civil War was extremely unpopular and
resulted in riots in some cites which would make most Vietnam
protest look like picnics. An interesting read is "A Country
Made by War". Less about wars themselves and more about the
lead ins and their effects on the country in general.

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
>>>> into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
>>>>
>>>> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))
>>>
>>> Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
>>> veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
>>> job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
>>> about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
>>> local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
>>> myths--which will it be?
>>
>> I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?
>
> You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
> are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
> his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
> ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is it a
deal or not?

George Z.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ron W wrote:
>> You want to explain that again? I'm having trouble getting a mental picture
>> of what you did. You grind the nose on the runway, then lower the gear?
>> After grinding, then you flare? I'm missing something.
>
> Sorry I guess I was a little too terse. We flew our final at 800 ft
> altitude above ground, (IIRC) until the nose of the a/c just passed
> over the end of the runway below, then chopped power, etc, and
> flared out of the rather steep end of the final approach.. We didn't
> grind anything along the runway if we did things right. Remember during the
> air lift, they were hauling loads onto relativly short runways surrounded by
> buildings. Their approaches needed to be steep! We
> certainly didn't need to did this at Yokota, but the demonstration was
> an effective learning tool, if it was needed else where!


Thanks for the more complete explanation; I got that one. I wish I could say I
was flying the C-54, but the closest I ever got to one was riding in the back as
a kid. There's two other C-54 drivers here: one former and one current.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and
interest
> >>>> into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
> >>>>
> >>>> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
> >>> veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
> >>> job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
> >>> about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
> >>> local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
> >>> myths--which will it be?
> >>
> >> I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?
> >
> > You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding
WSI,
> > are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky
based
> > his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in
blissful
> > ignorance, huh?
>
> "Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is
it a
> deal or not?

Typical George. I asked you up front whether you'd rather read an
interesting work that convincingly puts paid to your ridiculous "Kerry's
speech before Congress was based upon sworn testimony!" (which you
compounded by making that false statement not once but twice in the same
post), or whether you'd prefer to float happily along in continuing
ignorance of the truth regarding that matter. No surprise that you have
chosen the latter--perish the thought of your reading a factual account that
by happenstance (Burkett's work was not directed at a guy who was then just
another Senator from Kennedyland) casts a pall over the veracity of your new
hero's most (in)famous moment. Being afraid of reading the truth (such as
the true nature of the WSI "testimony") is one heck of an endorsement for
your candidate, George.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
>>>>>> into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
>>>>> Vietnam veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even
>>>>> more admirable job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony
>>>>> you keep muttering about. You have two choices here, George--go check the
>>>>> book out from your local library and give it a read, or continue to march
>>>>> with your cherished myths--which will it be?
>>>>
>>>> I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?
>>>
>>> You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
>>> are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
>>> his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
>>> ignorance, huh?
>>
>> "Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is it a
>> deal or not?
>
> Typical George. I asked you up front whether you'd rather read an
> interesting work that convincingly puts paid to your ridiculous "Kerry's
> speech before Congress was based upon sworn testimony!" (which you
> compounded by making that false statement not once but twice in the same
> post), or whether you'd prefer to float happily along in continuing
> ignorance of the truth regarding that matter. No surprise that you have
> chosen the latter--perish the thought of your reading a factual account that
> by happenstance (Burkett's work was not directed at a guy who was then just
> another Senator from Kennedyland) casts a pall over the veracity of your new
> hero's most (in)famous moment. Being afraid of reading the truth (such as
> the true nature of the WSI "testimony") is one heck of an endorsement for
> your candidate, George.

I guess I'll have to take that as a "No", then. You obviously still want to
babble on. Well, since you don't want to make a deal with me, and I obviously
can't force you to, go right ahead and keep on babbling, just like the
proverbial brook. (^-^)))

It shouldn't matter to you then if I snooze while you gurgle away. Good night.

George Z.

[Cub Driver]

On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

>How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
>exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[me]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:
>
> >How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
> >exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.
>
> The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
> chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
> poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe. I think there is
little doubt that without NATO, several european countries would
have been invaded on various pretenses. Easily Berlin would have
"fallen". Waiting until it actually happened would have been
disaster for the US. They would have been left with the choice
of going into a major superpower war over say Germany. NATO
made all of the european countries "one country" militarily
speaking and we tended to be VERY preemptive in our strategy.

They were a vastly lesser threat in the "home country" than
we made out. Of course, that is also a far distance from saying
they were "no threat" here at home. They were a huge intelligence
threat. But they had no real interest in invading or starting a
war with us directly. Truth is, in hindsight, we were more
threatening to them than they were to us.

The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk. In my mind the real question is
in the african and south american arenas. You can make a case
that our most effective opposition was in those areas. Alternately
though, you can make the case that the Soviets never had a prayer.
Much like their inability to spread their influence through
southeast asia, it isn't clear it would spread through Africa
nor South America. Heck, in reality it didn't take hold in
Eastern Europe much less anywhere in Asia.

If there is a legacy to the cold war it is that we didn't have
the "courage of our convictions". Communism didn't take hold
for all the reasons that democracy has. We always claim to be
the "beacon of freedom". But in too many cases we've been the
supporter of despots to keep them out of the arms of communists.
We probably didn't need to, communists couldn't hold them.

[Cub Driver]

>> The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
>> chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
>> poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!
>
>
> Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe.

I'm sorry! I was trying to be funny. (Or anyhow ironical.)
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Evan Brennan]

(me) wrote in message >...
> The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
> Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
> real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
> Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
> The domino theory was bunk.


Perhaps true, but North Vietnamese officials did make public remarks
which instead claimed that Hanoi was part of a global Communist
effort. In 1966, Hoang Anh (Minister of Agriculture and member of the
Central Committee) rationalized the acceptance of military aid from
China and the Soviets with this explanation:

" While setting high the spirit of relying on are own strength as our
main concern, our people highly value and strive to win the sympathy
and support from the fraternal socialist countries and from the
progressive people of the world. We constantly think that our people's
fight against America for national salvation is an inseparable part of
the world revolution. With the victory of the Vietnamese people and
the defeat of the U.S. imperialists, the socialist camp, the world
revolution, and world peace will win. We are exerting all our strength
to fulfill this international duty "

'North Vietnam's Strategy For Survival', Jon M. Van Dyke, 1972.

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:26:40 -0500, Allen Epps
> wrote:

> And indeed that answers that he was a Naval Aviator and when. To answer
> the second part he flew S2F Trackers aka Stoofs.

Regarding which, see:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2465603921&category=26428

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Krztalizer]

>
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2465603921&
category=26428
>

Kick the tires and light the fires, big daddy.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Krztalizer wrote:
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2465603921&
>> category=26428
>>
>
> Kick the tires and light the fires, big daddy.


I was going to bid until I saw it was out of annual. Foiled again!



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Peter Stickney]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2465603921&
> category=26428
> >
>
> Kick the tires and light the fires, big daddy.

Well, it's been overdue for an annual for 11 years, the
engines have to be pretty close to an overhaul
(At what, 15 grand each?) and, without looking it up, it's
a fair bet the props are due, too. (2700 Hrs on the props,
about twice that on the airframe, so the last set got changed
at about the same elapsed time)

Now, we'v got a guuy up here in the Upper Right Corner of the
country, with a TF-1/C-1A. All the fun of a Stoof, and you can
take the kids & the dog along, too. (For the younger folks,
the C-1A was the Navy's COD transport before the C-2 took over.
It was basically an S-2 with all the ASW geat removed, passenger
seats, and special cargo bins (So that they could make Car shots
and arrested landings without squashing anybody))

--
Pete Stickney

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > >
> >
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2465603921&
> > category=26428
> > >
> >
> > Kick the tires and light the fires, big daddy.
>
> Well, it's been overdue for an annual for 11 years, the
> engines have to be pretty close to an overhaul
> (At what, 15 grand each?) and, without looking it up, it's
> a fair bet the props are due, too. (2700 Hrs on the props,
> about twice that on the airframe, so the last set got changed
> at about the same elapsed time)
>
> Now, we'v got a guuy up here in the Upper Right Corner of the
> country, with a TF-1/C-1A. All the fun of a Stoof, and you can
> take the kids & the dog along, too. (For the younger folks,
> the C-1A was the Navy's COD transport before the C-2 took over.
> It was basically an S-2 with all the ASW geat removed, passenger
> seats, and special cargo bins (So that they could make Car shots
> and arrested landings without squashing anybody))

That wouldn't be located at that airport you pass on the road just before
crossing bridge that leads from the mainland out to Acadia/Bar Harbor, is
it? Saw a few older aircraft there last summer, one of which was an
unidentified twin-engine off in the distance.

Brooks

>
> --
> Pete Stickney

[Ganton Pretz]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Dave Kearton"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > | In article >,
>
> > |
> > |
> > | So how is Rumsfeld avoiding combat if he's flying ASW duty, but he and
> > | his squadronmates were part of a strategic deterresnt against Communist
> > | forces?
> >
> >
> > | ASW pilots that sank subs in WWII rarely were shot at in the
> > | Atlantic theater -- the weather, distances and aircraft reliability
> > | were
> > | far more an issue. So is attacking a submerged sub seeing the
> > | elephant?
> > |
> > |
> >
> >
> > Very minor nitpick Howard.
> >
> >
> > ASW crews in the Atlantic were routinely shot at in the latter part of
> > the
> > war and some were shot down by their quarry.
> >
> >
> > From late '43, the anti submarine weapons became more common and more
> > effective. U-boat crews often felt they had a better chance of
> > survival
> > if they stayed on the surface and engaged the aircraft at over 2,000m
> > with
> > 20mm and larger.
> >
>
> I am aware of Doenitz putting extra AA on some subs, and especially the
> Bay of Biscay, but my impression was that while subs hit a few planes,
> so many subs were lost quickly that Doenitz quit this quickly. I'm
> certainly willing to be corrected on this.


Trying to shoot up aircarft was a waste of time. The balance of
stress was with the U-boat. They were raw, tired, paranoid, and then
bingo a big plane with a light blasts them.

The aircrew would be the least stressed. They were the people picking
the moment. Convoying the U-boats together might ensure a hit but was
as likely to lose a U-boat. A U-boat for a plane was a bad swop.

The solution had to be the tracking of coastal command aeroplanes the
same way the Germans tracked bomber comand aircraft. However the
Goring was not a team player. IFF (British) could be detected and used
by the Germans.