best mil+aviation writers?

[Cub Driver]

If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
military aviation, who would they be?

I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
numbers of people would recognize.

Antoine de St Exupery? (Can't stand him, personally, but he seems
beloved)

Ernest Gahn? (or was he a civilian writer only?)

Personally, I think of Don Lopez (Into the Teeth of the Tiger) but I'm
not sure how well known he is to the general public.

Thanks for your input!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> military aviation, who would they be?

I'd include Richard Bach--I can still remember reading, "Stranger to the
Ground", about a sortie in an F-84F, back while I was in high school. And
no, I have *never* read his trademark, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"...

Brooks

>
> I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> numbers of people would recognize.
>
> Antoine de St Exupery? (Can't stand him, personally, but he seems
> beloved)
>
> Ernest Gahn? (or was he a civilian writer only?)
>
> Personally, I think of Don Lopez (Into the Teeth of the Tiger) but I'm
> not sure how well known he is to the general public.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Jim Doyle]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> military aviation, who would they be?
>
> I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> numbers of people would recognize.

For personal recollections: 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason is awe-inspiring.

It's about his year as a Heuy pilot in Vietnam ('66 I think) - don't know if
I'd classify him as one of the great writers, but it's very well written. If
you like the perfect balance between the historical and human sides of
military aviation/warfare it'll be the right book for you.

>
> Antoine de St Exupery? (Can't stand him, personally, but he seems
> beloved)
>
> Ernest Gahn? (or was he a civilian writer only?)
>
> Personally, I think of Don Lopez (Into the Teeth of the Tiger) but I'm
> not sure how well known he is to the general public.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> > military aviation, who would they be?
> >
> > I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> > numbers of people would recognize.
>
> For personal recollections: 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason is
awe-inspiring.
>
> It's about his year as a Heuy pilot in Vietnam ('66 I think) - don't know
if
> I'd classify him as one of the great writers, but it's very well written.
If
> you like the perfect balance between the historical and human sides of
> military aviation/warfare it'll be the right book for you.

My own recollection of that book, now grown hazy by the march of time, was
that it seemed to be more of a tome of excuses..."How I Ended Up Getting
Snagged for Smuggling Illegal Narcotics, and Why My Vietnam Experience Was
To Blame..." would have been a good second title. My brother was a Huey
pilot in that same war, and he did not hold that particular book in great
regard.

Brooks

>
> >
> > Antoine de St Exupery? (Can't stand him, personally, but he seems
> > beloved)
> >
> > Ernest Gahn? (or was he a civilian writer only?)
> >
> > Personally, I think of Don Lopez (Into the Teeth of the Tiger) but I'm
> > not sure how well known he is to the general public.
> >
> > Thanks for your input!
> >
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
> >
> > The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> > The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> > Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org
>
>

[Jim Doyle]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> > > military aviation, who would they be?
> > >
> > > I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> > > numbers of people would recognize.
> >
> > For personal recollections: 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason is
> awe-inspiring.
> >
> > It's about his year as a Heuy pilot in Vietnam ('66 I think) - don't
know
> if
> > I'd classify him as one of the great writers, but it's very well
written.
> If
> > you like the perfect balance between the historical and human sides of
> > military aviation/warfare it'll be the right book for you.
>
> My own recollection of that book, now grown hazy by the march of time, was
> that it seemed to be more of a tome of excuses..."How I Ended Up Getting
> Snagged for Smuggling Illegal Narcotics, and Why My Vietnam Experience Was
> To Blame..." would have been a good second title. My brother was a Huey
> pilot in that same war, and he did not hold that particular book in great
> regard.
>
> Brooks
>

It seemed to me very honest and frank which is why it struck a chord, but
obviously I wasn't there so can't say whether it is a fair representation.
Was it Mason blaming Vietnam for his subsequent troubles, or the account of
his time in Vietnam that your brother didn't like?

Jim

[Steve]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> military aviation, who would they be?
>
> I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> numbers of people would recognize.


There are three that I can name offhand:

Martin Caidin - Whip, The Last Dogfight, (fiction), Everything But the
Flak!, Thunderbolt!, Zero! (non-fiction). Also authored "Cyborg," which
became "The Six Million Dollar Man" on television.

Stephen Coonts - Flight of the Intruder, The Intruders, among others.

Dale Brown - Flight of the Old Dog, Night of the Hawk, Fatal Terrain, Battle
Born, among others. Brown crosses the realm of old-fashioned aviation
writing and science fiction.

Steve

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> > > > military aviation, who would they be?
> > > >
> > > > I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that
large
> > > > numbers of people would recognize.
> > >
> > > For personal recollections: 'Chickenhawk' by Robert Mason is
> > awe-inspiring.
> > >
> > > It's about his year as a Heuy pilot in Vietnam ('66 I think) - don't
> know
> > if
> > > I'd classify him as one of the great writers, but it's very well
> written.
> > If
> > > you like the perfect balance between the historical and human sides of
> > > military aviation/warfare it'll be the right book for you.
> >
> > My own recollection of that book, now grown hazy by the march of time,
was
> > that it seemed to be more of a tome of excuses..."How I Ended Up Getting
> > Snagged for Smuggling Illegal Narcotics, and Why My Vietnam Experience
Was
> > To Blame..." would have been a good second title. My brother was a Huey
> > pilot in that same war, and he did not hold that particular book in
great
> > regard.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
>
> It seemed to me very honest and frank which is why it struck a chord, but
> obviously I wasn't there so can't say whether it is a fair representation.
> Was it Mason blaming Vietnam for his subsequent troubles, or the account
of
> his time in Vietnam that your brother didn't like?

IIRC it was the fact that he used his Vietnam experience to try and excuse
his little legal fiasco. I actually made the mistake of buying a copy and
when I skimmed it later and caught that angle I put it aside--I mentioned it
to the older brother later, and he sort of scoffed at the book, which he had
read himself.

Brooks

>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>

[N329DF]

Mark Berent: Rolling Thunder, Steel Tiger, Phantom Leader, Eagle Station, Storm
Flight

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
> > military aviation, who would they be?
> >
> > I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
> > numbers of people would recognize.
>
>
> There are three that I can name offhand:
>
> Martin Caidin - Whip, The Last Dogfight, (fiction), Everything But the
> Flak!, Thunderbolt!, Zero! (non-fiction). Also authored "Cyborg," which
> became "The Six Million Dollar Man" on television.
>
> Stephen Coonts - Flight of the Intruder, The Intruders, among others.
>
> Dale Brown - Flight of the Old Dog, Night of the Hawk, Fatal Terrain,
Battle
> Born, among others. Brown crosses the realm of old-fashioned aviation
> writing and science fiction.
>

Antoine de Saint Exupery, Nevil Shute and Ernest K. Gann are fine authors
from an earlier age.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>Stephen Coonts - Flight of the Intruder, The Intruders, among others.

I've read some Coonts articles & enjoyed them, but never a book. Is he
a really really good writer? Do you sweat bullets when you read him?
Do your eyes light up because you've just had an insight you've never
had before? ROTFL?

Is Flight of the Intruder a personal memoir, or is it a novel or a
history?

Thanks for the pointer.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Jeb Hoge]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Stephen Coonts - Flight of the Intruder, The Intruders, among others.
>
> I've read some Coonts articles & enjoyed them, but never a book. Is he
> a really really good writer? Do you sweat bullets when you read him?
> Do your eyes light up because you've just had an insight you've never
> had before? ROTFL?
>
> Is Flight of the Intruder a personal memoir, or is it a novel or a
> history?

Coonts CAN be very, very good. FOTI is some parts memoir, I think,
and I imagine The Intruders is, too. Some of the later Grafton
novels...not so hot, IMO.

I liked the Richard Herman, Jr. series starting with The Warbirds
(characters Jack Locke, "Muddy" Waters, Pontowski, etc.), although
like with Brown, Coonts, etc., the need to carry on a storyline
through a number of books sometimes overwhelms the ability to do so.

And I have to say, at the risk of sounding sycophantic, I liked
Rasimus's style of writing, too. He and WaltBJ (and a few others)
have composed posts on this board that rival the quality of what some
authors get into mass-market print.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Steve
> writes
>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If you were going to name a couple of the greatest writers about
>> military aviation, who would they be?
>>
>> I want personal recollections, not history. I'd like names that large
>> numbers of people would recognize.
>
>
> There are three that I can name offhand:
>
>Martin Caidin - Whip, The Last Dogfight, (fiction), Everything But the
>Flak!, Thunderbolt!, Zero! (non-fiction). Also authored "Cyborg," which
>became "The Six Million Dollar Man" on television.
>
>Stephen Coonts - Flight of the Intruder, The Intruders, among others.
>
>Dale Brown - Flight of the Old Dog, Night of the Hawk, Fatal Terrain, Battle
>Born, among others. Brown crosses the realm of old-fashioned aviation
>writing and science fiction.
>
>Steve
>
>
Now you have complicated things by bringing fiction into it!

There could be a lot more truly accurate and exciting aviation fiction
on the market if only the publishers were not looking for the 'right
emotional focus' - cue for characters with outlandish personal traits
and a politically correct emphasis. And there is of course the
'heartrending tale of young love tested by a world at war' - cue for a
nice book cover, abundant technical inaccuracies, and an operational
lifestyle unknown to history.

The demand for 'broad appeal' has a lot to answer for.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:47:01 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:

>Now you have complicated things by bringing fiction into it!
>
>There could be a lot more truly accurate and exciting aviation fiction
>on the market if only the publishers were not looking for the 'right
>emotional focus' - cue for characters with outlandish personal traits
>and a politically correct emphasis. And there is of course the
>'heartrending tale of young love tested by a world at war' - cue for a
>nice book cover, abundant technical inaccuracies, and an operational
>lifestyle unknown to history.
>
>The demand for 'broad appeal' has a lot to answer for.

Tell me about it!

While trying to maintain a semblance of realism and acknowledgment of
the combined talent and inherent immaturity of the fighter pilot, I
included the following anonymous poem, gleaned from Internet sources
to the dedication of my new book. It has fallen to the cutting room
floor, never to see the light of publication, a victim of political
correctness. It says a lot. (Anyone know the origin?????)

>Girls with their pants down
>
>Because somewhere in me is still the little boy,
>who wants to kick the can and write on walls,
>and hitch rides on the tailgates of trucks,
>and pull little girls' pants down.
>
>And somewhere in me is still the go-to-hell pilot
>in the go-to-hell hat flinging an aircraft
>down boundless halls of space,
>and talking with hands for airplanes,
>and reliving the Po delta and the Mekong delta,
>and reaching out to touch the face of God,
>and profaning those who are tied to earth,
>and pulling girls' pants down.
>
>And somewhere in me is the Descartes and the Sartre
>who philosophizes on the here and the hereafter,
>and the deism of all that lives and not lives,
>and the beauty of sky and water and cloven hoofs and man, and girls with
>their pants down.
>
>And deep inside me there is that uncompromising realist
>who knows that this is all a terribly temporary gift;
>that sometime, perhaps this next second,
>he must run into that last hard object,
>be it the side of a mountain, the slam of a bullet,
>or that massive grasp of a giant's hand on a faltering heart.
>When that time comes, if there is one thing to remember.
>It will be that sweet memory that transcends them all,
>the little boy, the go-to-heller, the philosopher, the realist;
>it will be the ineffably beautiful picture of a girl. . .
>with her pants down.

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

[Jim Doyle]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

>
> IIRC it was the fact that he used his Vietnam experience to try and excuse
> his little legal fiasco. I actually made the mistake of buying a copy and
> when I skimmed it later and caught that angle I put it aside--I mentioned
it
> to the older brother later, and he sort of scoffed at the book, which he
had
> read himself.
>
> Brooks

I can see how that'd probably annoy other Vietnam vets - especially those
with the stones to admit and make good their mistakes (if any). Thinking
about the first time I read the book, I found it a real let down - so when
I've read it since I've always stopped at the penultimate chapter. Hence
forgetting about Mason's later transgressings.

Jim Doyle

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:47:01 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:
>
>>Now you have complicated things by bringing fiction into it!
>>
>>There could be a lot more truly accurate and exciting aviation fiction
>>on the market if only the publishers were not looking for the 'right
>>emotional focus' - cue for characters with outlandish personal traits
>>and a politically correct emphasis. And there is of course the
>>'heartrending tale of young love tested by a world at war' - cue for a
>>nice book cover, abundant technical inaccuracies, and an operational
>>lifestyle unknown to history.
>>
>>The demand for 'broad appeal' has a lot to answer for.
>
>Tell me about it!
>
>While trying to maintain a semblance of realism and acknowledgment of
>the combined talent and inherent immaturity of the fighter pilot, I
>included the following anonymous poem, gleaned from Internet sources
>to the dedication of my new book. It has fallen to the cutting room
>floor, never to see the light of publication, a victim of political
>correctness. It says a lot. (Anyone know the origin?????)
>
>>Girls with their pants down
>>
>>Because somewhere in me is still the little boy,
>>who wants to kick the can and write on walls,
>>and hitch rides on the tailgates of trucks,
>>and pull little girls' pants down.
>>
>>And somewhere in me is still the go-to-hell pilot
>>in the go-to-hell hat flinging an aircraft
>>down boundless halls of space,
>>and talking with hands for airplanes,
>>and reliving the Po delta and the Mekong delta,
>>and reaching out to touch the face of God,
>>and profaning those who are tied to earth,
>>and pulling girls' pants down.
>>
>>And somewhere in me is the Descartes and the Sartre
>>who philosophizes on the here and the hereafter,
>>and the deism of all that lives and not lives,
>>and the beauty of sky and water and cloven hoofs and man, and girls with
>>their pants down.
>>
>>And deep inside me there is that uncompromising realist
>>who knows that this is all a terribly temporary gift;
>>that sometime, perhaps this next second,
>>he must run into that last hard object,
>>be it the side of a mountain, the slam of a bullet,
>>or that massive grasp of a giant's hand on a faltering heart.
>>When that time comes, if there is one thing to remember.
>>It will be that sweet memory that transcends them all,
>>the little boy, the go-to-heller, the philosopher, the realist;
>>it will be the ineffably beautiful picture of a girl. . .
>>with her pants down.
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Thanks for that, Ed - duly cut and pasted, and will be cherished...

I was taught to fly by a loony ex-Spitfire pilot who probably fitted the
mould you have described. I am glad that I am the age that I am and
have had the chance to talk to some of these guys - but I suspect you
have known many more...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> IIRC it was the fact that he used his Vietnam experience to try and excuse
> his little legal fiasco. I actually made the mistake of buying a copy and
> when I skimmed it later and caught that angle I put it aside--I mentioned it
> to the older brother later, and he sort of scoffed at the book, which he had
> read himself.

I didn't get the impression he did any such thing. I believe the part about
his life after the military was only a few pages. I can't vouch for the veracity
of the book, but I enjoyed it a lot. Perhaps you are thinking of his second
book, which picked up where the first one ended?

Mike Beede

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> While trying to maintain a semblance of realism and acknowledgment of
> the combined talent and inherent immaturity of the fighter pilot, I
> included the following anonymous poem, gleaned from Internet sources
> to the dedication of my new book. It has fallen to the cutting room
> floor, never to see the light of publication, a victim of political
> correctness. It says a lot. (Anyone know the origin?????)

So the publisher wouldn't let you include it? Or someone talked
you out of it? If the former--boo hiss. I guess I foolishly thought
that authors had control over things like that.

Mike Beede

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:59:59 -0500, Mike Beede > wrote:

>In article >, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>> While trying to maintain a semblance of realism and acknowledgment of
>> the combined talent and inherent immaturity of the fighter pilot, I
>> included the following anonymous poem, gleaned from Internet sources
>> to the dedication of my new book. It has fallen to the cutting room
>> floor, never to see the light of publication, a victim of political
>> correctness. It says a lot. (Anyone know the origin?????)
>
>So the publisher wouldn't let you include it? Or someone talked
>you out of it? If the former--boo hiss. I guess I foolishly thought
>that authors had control over things like that.
>
While the contract may say that the publisher will not make
"significant" or "major" revisions to the work, it is surprising what
they can do. I had a lot of input on the first book, but the second
one has had the title changed (over my strenuous objections) and the
cover art settled without consideration of my input.

The poem is considered indelicate, particularly in this period of
sexual harassment scandals at the AFA and other places. Might be too
reminiscent of Tailhook.


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

[Paul Michael Brown]

I collect books about the air war in Southeast Asia circa 1964 to 1975.
Here are my favorite works about that period:

When Thunder Rolled -- Ed Rasimus.
Anything by Jack Broughton.
IMHO, these are the definitive books about the F-105 mission during
Rolling Thunder. Ed disagrees with me, but I'll give an honorable mention
to the book by Gen. Bell as well.

Over the Beach -- Zalin Grant.
The Heart of a Man -- Frank Elkins.
Captain Hook -- Wynn Foster.
On Yankee Station -- John Nichols & Barrett Tillman
Flight of the Intruder -- Stephen Coonts.
Wilcox' book (forget the name) about the creation of Top Gun. Perhaps
Scream of Eagles?
Any novel by Gerry Carroll.
These are the best books about naval aviation in that peried. If you're a
naval aviation fan, you should should also seek out the Motorbooks
collection of articles from the Naval Safety Center's Approach magazine.
Every one is based on actual events, and they are terrific.

Clashes
The Eleven Days of Christmas
both by Marshal Michel
Definitive studies of the air-to-air war over NVN and the Linebacker II
campaign, respectively.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
...
> I collect books about the air war in Southeast Asia circa 1964 to 1975.
> Here are my favorite works about that period:
>
> When Thunder Rolled -- Ed Rasimus.
> Anything by Jack Broughton.
> IMHO, these are the definitive books about the F-105 mission during
> Rolling Thunder. Ed disagrees with me, but I'll give an honorable mention
> to the book by Gen. Bell as well.
>
> Over the Beach -- Zalin Grant.
> The Heart of a Man -- Frank Elkins.
> Captain Hook -- Wynn Foster.
> On Yankee Station -- John Nichols & Barrett Tillman
> Flight of the Intruder -- Stephen Coonts.
> Wilcox' book (forget the name) about the creation of Top Gun. Perhaps
> Scream of Eagles?
> Any novel by Gerry Carroll.

Carrol claimed to be a Vietnam veteran who was shot down three times (just
ask Tom Clancy, who vouched for him in each of his three novels, including
the last one that was printed after his death). Nice story--if it were true.
Sadly, it is not. He was a navy helo pilot, but he never served in Vietnam.
Burkett and Whitley revealed the truth behind this sham Vietnam vet in
"Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its
History" back in 1998. While I recall liking his books, learning the above
has left me unwilling to ever recommend them to anyone else.

Brooks

> These are the best books about naval aviation in that peried. If you're a
> naval aviation fan, you should should also seek out the Motorbooks
> collection of articles from the Naval Safety Center's Approach magazine.
> Every one is based on actual events, and they are terrific.
>
> Clashes
> The Eleven Days of Christmas
> both by Marshal Michel
> Definitive studies of the air-to-air war over NVN and the Linebacker II
> campaign, respectively.

[Guy Alcala]

Paul Michael Brown wrote:

> I collect books about the air war in Southeast Asia circa 1964 to 1975.
> Here are my favorite works about that period:
>
> When Thunder Rolled -- Ed Rasimus.
> Anything by Jack Broughton.

I'll take "Going Downtown" over "Thud Ridge".

> IMHO, these are the definitive books about the F-105 mission during
> Rolling Thunder. Ed disagrees with me, but I'll give an honorable mention
> to the book by Gen. Bell as well.

As would I. Gene Basel's "Pak Six" is okay, but less informative in the areas
of interest to me..

> Over the Beach -- Zalin Grant.
> The Heart of a Man -- Frank Elkins.
> Captain Hook -- Wynn Foster.
> On Yankee Station -- John Nichols & Barrett Tillman
> Flight of the Intruder -- Stephen Coonts.
> Wilcox' book (forget the name) about the creation of Top Gun. Perhaps
> Scream of Eagles?
> Any novel by Gerry Carroll.
> These are the best books about naval aviation in that peried.

You've left out "Alpha Strike Vietnam," a chronological collection by year of
firsthand accounts. Kind of like "Fast Movers," but unlike most such
collections, this one concentrates on the attack pilots flying
A-1/A-4/A-6/A-7, irather than the fighters. Many of the navy attack types
mentioned in various books above were interviewed for the book. And I'd put
Tom Wilson's novels, or at least "Termite Hill", which like "Flight of the
Intruder" and most first novels by pilots is largely based on the experiences
of the author (with one presumes a considerable amount of "improvements" to
the story when it comes to the sexual escapades of one of the main characters,
Wilson's alter ego), on the list. Wilson was a Weasel Bear at Takhli late '66
- early '67. Linking up with that, Anthony Thornborough's non-fiction book
"Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defenses" is a must read on that subject,
even though it isn't just dedicated to Vietnam. it contains far better
descriptions of the various RWR, jammer and ARM capabilities of that era, with
photos showing the equipment and describing its operation than I've found
anywhere else.

Guy

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
confessed the following:

>I'll take "Going Downtown" over "Thud Ridge".

I've read Thud Ridge at least 6 times, but Going Downtown only once. I
was put off with a minor detail, his description of an RF-101
shootdown in Nov 1964. He sorta kinda has the name right, Bert Walls
(IIRC) is actually Burt Waltz (currently residing near Hickam AFB)
and some of the cavalier attitude (IMO) he attributed to BW is not how
Burt remembers it.

Burt does blame his tactics, the target he got shotdown over had a
37mm site which was credited with downing an F-100 (William Martin
KIA) that was escorting an RF-101 three days prior. Just before
starting engines Burt was handed an additional target (this gunsite
road intersection) by his Det Commander George Hall. This target was
very close to Burt's last planned target, so the bad guys were given a
heads up. Instead of leaving the area and coming back in 10-15
minutes, Burt flew a wide arc above an undercast around the north side
to the east for an East-West photo run.

Burt flat out says he (obviously) didn't get far enough away and the
gunners lit him up as soon as he descended through the cloud deck. His
jet was engulfed in flames but ejected unscathed. His parachute
descent ended about 80-100' up in the trees. He damn near killed
himself when then locally modified personal lowering device (just a
long piece of rope) that he had poorly tied to a limb, gave way with
Burt about 75' above the ground.

Happy ending all around, an Air America helo rescued him. He even has
pictures of himself laying on the floor of the helo. It took over a
year to get back on flying status.

Alas I donated "Going Downtown," to my local library. Guy, unlike you
I buy lots of books, parting with them is almost unthinkable, no
qualms with GD.

>As would I. Gene Basel's "Pak Six" is okay, but less informative in the areas
>of interest to me..

I also like Al Lenski's "Magic 100."

>You've left out "Alpha Strike Vietnam," a chronological collection by year of
>firsthand accounts. Kind of like "Fast Movers," but unlike most such
>collections, this one concentrates on the attack pilots flying
>A-1/A-4/A-6/A-7, irather than the fighters.

I enjoyed ASV, couldn't finish FM (and yet I liked Sherwood's Korean
effort "Offiecers in flight Suits."). FM suffered the same fate as GD
and now resides in a local library.

I really enjoyed was George Marrett's "Cheating Death," combined with
Byron Hukee's http://skyraider.org/hook/ and Tilford's "The USAF
Search and Rescue in SEA," they make a good trio.

> Linking up with that, Anthony Thornborough's non-fiction book
>"Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defenses" is a must read...

Agree.

Juavt

[Guy Alcala]

Robey Price wrote:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
> confessed the following:
>
> >I'll take "Going Downtown" over "Thud Ridge".
>
> I've read Thud Ridge at least 6 times, but Going Downtown only once. I
> was put off with a minor detail, his description of an RF-101
> shootdown in Nov 1964. He sorta kinda has the name right, Bert Walls
> (IIRC) is actually Burt Waltz (currently residing near Hickam AFB)
> and some of the cavalier attitude (IMO) he attributed to BW is not how
> Burt remembers it.

<snip>

> Alas I donated "Going Downtown," to my local library. Guy, unlike you
> I buy lots of books, parting with them is almost unthinkable, no
> qualms with GD.

I'd be sleeping in the car with the books overflowing the house if I bought
everything I read. I confess to having problems with Broughton's idiosyncratic
spelling in "GD" ('Oerlicon,' indeed), and "Thud Ridge" is better writing, but I
know the story -- I'm after the technical stuff, and "GD" provides more of that
than "TR".

> >As would I. Gene Basel's "Pak Six" is okay, but less informative in the areas
> >of interest to me..
>
> I also like Al Lenski's "Magic 100."

Haven't found that one yet.

> >You've left out "Alpha Strike Vietnam," a chronological collection by year of
> >firsthand accounts. Kind of like "Fast Movers," but unlike most such
> >collections, this one concentrates on the attack pilots flying
> >A-1/A-4/A-6/A-7, irather than the fighters.
>
> I enjoyed ASV, couldn't finish FM (and yet I liked Sherwood's Korean
> effort "Offiecers in flight Suits."). FM suffered the same fate as GD
> and now resides in a local library.

I wasn't all that impressed by it either - ISTR that Sherwood lacked aviation
background, which tended to throw jarring notes into the book that would bring me
up[ short. But I got to read the short form of Ed's 105 tour before he wrote
"WTR," plus I though the chapter on Robin Olds was pretty good (for his
personality, if not the accuracy of the facts cited).

> I really enjoyed was George Marrett's "Cheating Death," combined with
> Byron Hukee's http://skyraider.org/hook/ and Tilford's "The USAF
> Search and Rescue in SEA," they make a good trio.

Haven't read those, but I thought Tilford's "Setup: What the Air Force did in
Vietnam and Why" was excellent. Sort of "Clashes," several echelons up.

Guy

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
confessed the following:

>Haven't read those, but I thought Tilford's "Setup: What the Air Force did in
>Vietnam and Why" was excellent. Sort of "Clashes," several echelons up.

I enjoyed "Setup" which makes for an interesting study along with Adm
Sharp's "Strategy for Defeat," and Mark Clodfelter's "The Limits of
Air Power."

I gotta admit that I think Clodfelter got it right. I had come to
similar conclusions (based upon my own research) before I read his
book. Heck I read it just a couple years ago and he published it in
1989.

Juvat

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:46:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Robey Price wrote:
>
>> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
>> confessed the following:
>>
>> >I'll take "Going Downtown" over "Thud Ridge".
>>
>> I've read Thud Ridge at least 6 times, but Going Downtown only once. I
>> was put off with a minor detail, his description of an RF-101
>> shootdown in Nov 1964. He sorta kinda has the name right, Bert Walls
>> (IIRC) is actually Burt Waltz (currently residing near Hickam AFB)
>> and some of the cavalier attitude (IMO) he attributed to BW is not how
>> Burt remembers it.

I enjoyed Thud Ridge, primarily because at the time it came out it was
the only available book telling the story of the F-105 air war. I
faulted it for being a bit too heavy on the braggadocio and too
heavily weighted into MiGs that were few and far between. It still
conveyed a sense of the intensity of the mission and the frustrations
that we all felt.
>
>> Alas I donated "Going Downtown," to my local library. Guy, unlike you
>> I buy lots of books, parting with them is almost unthinkable, no
>> qualms with GD.

I couldn't stand Going Downtown. The whole purpose of the book was an
excuse for Broughton's actions in the Turkestan scandal. Years after
the events he still couldn't acknowledge the impropriety of his
actions and he still wanted to blame someone else for the collapse of
his promising career.

Last year in Las Vegas I had the chance to talk at length with Robin
Olds regarding Turkestan. Robin was commanding the 8th TFW at Ubon at
the time and was airborne nearby during the strafing. He recounted the
specificity of the morning briefing on the location of the ship and
the prohibition against attacking it. When he saw the activity going
on from his location several miles north along the coast, he knew
someone had screwed up big-time.

Olds was tasked to conduct the initial investigation and remains quite
knowledgeable on the events.
>
>I'd be sleeping in the car with the books overflowing the house if I bought
>everything I read. I confess to having problems with Broughton's idiosyncratic
>spelling in "GD" ('Oerlicon,' indeed), and "Thud Ridge" is better writing, but I
>know the story -- I'm after the technical stuff, and "GD" provides more of that
>than "TR".

Seems the "technical stuff" of GD is mostly legalistic and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
>
>> >As would I. Gene Basel's "Pak Six" is okay, but less informative in the areas
>> >of interest to me..
>>
>> I also like Al Lenski's "Magic 100."

Here's the link to Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563112221/qid=1085242272/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-3597270-4560602?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

>> >You've left out "Alpha Strike Vietnam," a chronological collection by year of
>> >firsthand accounts. Kind of like "Fast Movers," but unlike most such
>> >collections, this one concentrates on the attack pilots flying
>> >A-1/A-4/A-6/A-7, irather than the fighters.
>>
>> I enjoyed ASV, couldn't finish FM (and yet I liked Sherwood's Korean
>> effort "Offiecers in flight Suits."). FM suffered the same fate as GD
>> and now resides in a local library.
>
>I wasn't all that impressed by it either - ISTR that Sherwood lacked aviation
>background, which tended to throw jarring notes into the book that would bring me
>up[ short. But I got to read the short form of Ed's 105 tour before he wrote
>"WTR," plus I though the chapter on Robin Olds was pretty good (for his
>personality, if not the accuracy of the facts cited).

John Sherwood is an historian (Official Historian USN is his job
title.) He is an excellent researcher, but not an aviator. Regardless,
Fast Movers is a pretty good compilation of oral history interviews.
He didn't do too badly in recounting the results of my interviews and
could only find one or two minor misstatements.

Robin Olds, however, claims he will rip John's beating heart from his
chest should they ever meet again. Robin seems upset at the
characterization as a hard-drinking, hard-fighting, womanizing,
hell-raiser that Sherwood drew. Actually, it seems spot on to me!

Sherwood's got a new one out, "Afterburner"--more oral history, this
time of USN operations over North Vietnam from Yankee Station. (Not
sure about the title--since most of the USN aircraft didn't have A/B,
e.g. A-4, A-7, A-6, A-1, A-3D.

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

[WaltBJ]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Robey Price wrote:
>
> > After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
> > confessed the following:
SNIP:

I was half-way through "on Yankee Station" when I realized my jaw was
aching. I discovered I'd been grinding my teeth in subconscious rage
seeing the Navy had gone through the same BS we had experienced at Da
Nang, the same ignorance that had killed several dozens of my squadron
mates (in 9 fighter squadrons). I raised my head and startled my wife
by blurting out "If that SOB MacNamara was here I'd punch him right in
the nose!" BTW, I still feel that way . . .
Walt BJ

[Ed Rasimus]

On 22 May 2004 13:05:19 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>I was half-way through "on Yankee Station" when I realized my jaw was
>aching. I discovered I'd been grinding my teeth in subconscious rage
>seeing the Navy had gone through the same BS we had experienced at Da
>Nang, the same ignorance that had killed several dozens of my squadron
>mates (in 9 fighter squadrons). I raised my head and startled my wife
>by blurting out "If that SOB MacNamara was here I'd punch him right in
>the nose!" BTW, I still feel that way . . .
>Walt BJ

Never forgive, never forget. The line for the McNamara shot starts
down the block there. There are a lot of folks already in the queue.


This from the last chapter of When Thunder Rolled:

"It's thirty-five years since that summer of '66 and the view of the
war today is only slightly clearer than it was then. We don't know yet
why we were there or what the objective was. We can't define a
national self-interest for involvement in Southeast Asia nor has
anyone told us what was worth squandering such a valuable treasure of
manpower and machines. We should know, but we don't. There have been
many attempts to explain it all, but they are either self-serving
excuses posing as the memoirs of the senior decision makers or
detailed rationale of their pacifism by professors who opposed the war
and taught their students how to think the same way. As with so much
of history, it depends upon the particular perspective of the observer
rather than the facts at hand.

Looking at the various levels of involvement in Rolling Thunder we can
see the lieutenants doing what was asked of them without question. We
trusted our leaders and our senior decision-makers to give us a
mission with a purpose. They had a moral obligation to not waste our
lives without meaning. They would decide when war was necessary and
what it took to win that war. In return for that, we would risk our
lives and do the job. We would fly and fight because, as the sign in
the Korat briefing room reminded us daily, that was the mission of the
United States Air Force. All we asked was that we be allowed to win.

The captains and majors had the benefit of experience. Some had been
in Korea and faced the challenge of overcoming their fears in that
earlier war, but all of them had the hours of flying time that helped
them to handle the tasks thrust upon them. They fought and died, doing
the job that they had been asked to do. They led the trusting
lieutenants, sometimes competently and sometimes reaching too far.
Occasionally they failed, but they did the best they could.

The colonels and the generals were the failures. They let us down by
failing to challenge the political leadership of the country. They had
an obligation to follow the orders of the duly elected administration,
but they needed to demand clear tasking and reasonable rules under
which to conduct the war. It's too easy to attribute the mismanagement
of the war to a timid foreign policy and a reluctance to risk
confrontation with the Soviets and Chinese. If one isn't willing to
win, then one shouldn't risk defeat. Fighting with no purpose is the
true immorality of war because it means you are asking your citizens
to die for no reason other than winning the next election or making
profits for a major international corporation. Dying for one's country
is no longer noble when your country doesn't care either way about the
outcome and it becomes a travesty when your war is being waged in
conjunction with the latest presidential campaign. Turn it on when
you're high in the polls and turn it off in response to the latest
protest gathering by your richest contributors. Several hundred
aircrew members languishing in North Vietnam prisons? No problem. They
won't be voting and the majority of people don't think they were doing
the right thing anyway."


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

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:46:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >I'd be sleeping in the car with the books overflowing the house if I bought
> >everything I read. I confess to having problems with Broughton's idiosyncratic
> >spelling in "GD" ('Oerlicon,' indeed), and "Thud Ridge" is better writing, but I
> >know the story -- I'm after the technical stuff, and "GD" provides more of that
> >than "TR".
>
> Seems the "technical stuff" of GD is mostly legalistic and the Uniform
> Code of Military Justice.

<snip>

Then you must have skipped the chapter discussing "Project Swatrock" in Korea (where he used those 'Oerlicon' rockets on his F-84), as well as
Broughton's opinions on the various Century series fighters, feelings about the Genie (IIRR he spelled it 'Geenie'), etc. That was the stuff that
interested me.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 06:29:06 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:46:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > -- I'm after the technical stuff, and "GD" provides more of that
>> >than "TR".
>>
>> Seems the "technical stuff" of GD is mostly legalistic and the Uniform
>> Code of Military Justice.
>
><snip>
>
>Then you must have skipped the chapter discussing "Project Swatrock" in Korea (where he used those 'Oerlicon' rockets on his F-84), as well as
>Broughton's opinions on the various Century series fighters, feelings about the Genie (IIRR he spelled it 'Geenie'), etc. That was the stuff that
>interested me.

One of the grad courses I suffered through in my formative years
required reading of a half-dozen works (maybe more,) some book-length,
some journal articles. In each, the task was to determine the author's
"thesis"--the core idea that provided the backbone of the book, and
then to ascertain if the author had provided the logically reasoned
argument to support that thesis.

In "Going Downtown" Broughton's thesis is that he was a victim of the
AF's desire to scapegoat him and destroy his career while he was
simply doing the proper thing as a commander and supporting his
troops. His recounting of his biographical experience is part of the
argument of "what a great guy am I."

The majority of the book deals with his legal travails as the AF holds
him accountable for wilful destruction of the evidence that his troops
violated the ROE. The investigation, the arrest, the detainment at
Clark, etc. are all Jack's bewailing his treatment. "Everyone knows I
was on the fast track to Chief of Staff...."

Bah humbug. It's a poor self-serving attempt to rewrite history. I'm
hoping I can encourage Olds to get his details of the story included
in his book.



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

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 06:29:06 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:46:55 GMT, Guy Alcala
> >> > wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > -- I'm after the technical stuff, and "GD" provides more of that
> >> >than "TR".
> >>
> >> Seems the "technical stuff" of GD is mostly legalistic and the Uniform
> >> Code of Military Justice.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Then you must have skipped the chapter discussing "Project Swatrock" in Korea (where he used those 'Oerlicon' rockets on his F-84), as well as
> >Broughton's opinions on the various Century series fighters, feelings about the Genie (IIRR he spelled it 'Geenie'), etc. That was the stuff that
> >interested me.
>
> One of the grad courses I suffered through in my formative years
> required reading of a half-dozen works (maybe more,) some book-length,
> some journal articles. In each, the task was to determine the author's
> "thesis"--the core idea that provided the backbone of the book, and
> then to ascertain if the author had provided the logically reasoned
> argument to support that thesis.
>
> In "Going Downtown" Broughton's thesis is that he was a victim of the
> AF's desire to scapegoat him and destroy his career while he was
> simply doing the proper thing as a commander and supporting his
> troops. His recounting of his biographical experience is part of the
> argument of "what a great guy am I."
>
> The majority of the book deals with his legal travails as the AF holds
> him accountable for wilful destruction of the evidence that his troops
> violated the ROE.

While agreeing with your description of _some_ of the book's thesis, I'll merely point out that the chapter describing the Turkestan incident begins on
page 207 of a 294 page book, and he continues on from there in the manner you describe. I'd also say that there was a third thesis to the book, that
political restrictions on the RoE handicapped our effectiveness. I know that you and virtually every U.S. aircrew member who participated in the war
agree.

> The investigation, the arrest, the detainment at
> Clark, etc. are all Jack's bewailing his treatment. "Everyone knows I
> was on the fast track to Chief of Staff...."

Sure, and it's tedious. It also seems to accurately describe the atmosphere at the time, at least as far as General Ryan and the higher echelons of
command were concerned.

> Bah humbug. It's a poor self-serving attempt to rewrite history. I'm
> hoping I can encourage Olds to get his details of the story included
> in his book.

Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to write them. I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:53:31 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>
>Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
>would be no reason to write them.

Can I assume that one of those fingers is for WTR and you've got one
left over for Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights? If you can find some
self-service there or some revisionism, I'm ready to take my hits.

> I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
>protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
>private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
>come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.

The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.


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

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:53:31 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
> >would be no reason to write them.
>
> Can I assume that one of those fingers is for WTR and you've got one
> left over for Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights? If you can find some
> self-service there or some revisionism, I'm ready to take my hits.

My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

> > I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
> >protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
> >private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
> >come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.
>
> The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
> engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
> caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
> certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
> but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.

Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:23:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:


>My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
>everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
>accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
>cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

Whoa...that's an incredible stretch from "self-serving and
revisionist" to now a contention that once someone writes a history
that anyone subsequent will be revisionist. Large complex events get
observed from a number of perspectives. If I write my memoir, which is
my experience from my point of view, my squadron commander writes his,
the wing commander writes his and the SecDef writes his, are we then
necessarily in some sort of revisionism squabble? You seem to suggest
a better view of the NFL game of the week if there is only one camera
angle.

Why bother? Why answer your grandchild when they ask "what did you do
in the war, Grandpa?" (BTW, I don't have children, so that is strictly
a rhetorical artifice.)
>
>> The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
>> engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
>> caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
>> certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
>> but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.
>
>Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
>you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
>he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
>shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
>had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
>court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
>policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

There's a huge stretch between "policy-making" and tactical maneuver.
To court-martial and "cashier" someone who has a thirst for the battle
is a sure route to a politically correct, but undeniably defeated
military. The difference between Tracy and Broughton is that in one
instance, a specific act was proscribed and briefed in detail. When
his troops acted in violation and were discovered, he destroyed
evidence, lied to his superiors, violated his oath of office and
failed to do his duty. In the other, no ordinance was expended, no
injuries were inflicted or sustained, no lies were told and the
incursion quite arguably could have been little other than a
navigational error in an area far from supporting nav aids and with
plenty of room for flexibility.

It was a privilege to fly with Fred Tracy, to fly in Fred Tracy's
squadron and to know him as an officer and a leader. Fred Tracy never
lost a wingman in combat during that tour (and neither did I), and our
squadron suffered remarkably low losses in a period in which other
units flying the same mission were decimated.

That is neither self-serving nor revisionist. It's simply the truth.


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

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:23:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
> >everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
> >accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
> >cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?
>
> Whoa...that's an incredible stretch from "self-serving and
> revisionist" to now a contention that once someone writes a history
> that anyone subsequent will be revisionist. Large complex events get
> observed from a number of perspectives. If I write my memoir, which is
> my experience from my point of view, my squadron commander writes his,
> the wing commander writes his and the SecDef writes his, are we then
> necessarily in some sort of revisionism squabble? You seem to suggest
> a better view of the NFL game of the week if there is only one camera
> angle.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that accounts are bound to conflict, depending on the perspective of the individual. there is usually an 'official' version, or
at least a generally accepted version, which is subject to revision when new information becomes available. Often such info radically changes our perspective
on events; sometimes, an individual looks at the data in a new way, and can demonstrate (or at least argue) that the Emperor has no clothes, contradicting the
accepted version. To take an extreme example, consider the effect of the declassification of ULTRA on the accepted versions of World War II; Don't you
consider the major re-analysis of events brought on by that to have revised much of the history that had previously been the accepted version? ISTM that you
view revisionism as a pejorative term for those who seek to grind ar particular axe; I consider it the normal course of historical research.

> Why bother? Why answer your grandchild when they ask "what did you do
> in the war, Grandpa?" (BTW, I don't have children, so that is strictly
> a rhetorical artifice.)

See above.

> >
> >> The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
> >> engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
> >> caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
> >> certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
> >> but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.
> >
> >Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
> >you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
> >he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
> >shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
> >had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
> >court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
> >policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?
>
> There's a huge stretch between "policy-making" and tactical maneuver.

"Tactical maneuver" is maybe violating the buffer zone a bit to avoid the SAMs and flak, while going downtown to drop bombs on his assigned target. Tracy
wasn't doing anything of the sort.

>
> To court-martial and "cashier" someone who has a thirst for the battle
> is a sure route to a politically correct, but undeniably defeated
> military. The difference between Tracy and Broughton is that in one
> instance, a specific act was proscribed and briefed in detail. When
> his troops acted in violation and were discovered, he destroyed
> evidence,

Yes.

> lied to his superiors,

No, he didn't. He didn't volunteer information, nor did he answer the question they meant to ask when he knew they really meant to ask another. When they
finally asked the right question, he answered it truthfully.

> violated his oath of office

Tracy didn't?! He deliberately violated the RoE and invaded the airspace of another country which we weren't at war with, not to accomplish his mission, but
for purely personal ego gratification. And he dragged three other pilots along with him, and risked them too.

> and
> failed to do his duty.

Just as every single one of you did in not reporting Tracy's deliberate border violation. As did all the people at Abu Ghraib who failed to report the abuse.
Broughton, at least, was trying to protect some of his own pilots from an error they'd made in the heat of the moment while doing their duty (i.e., prosecuting
their assigned mission). He could have turned them in, refusing to become complicit in their apparently unintentional error. Instead, he tried to protect his
men, even at the risk of his own career, when he could easily have stood aside and thrown them to the wolves. Of course, it's entirely possible that there was
an element of self-interest here; even if he'd followed the book and busted them, it could be that some of the stink would have rubbed off on him (not to
mention Bob Scott) and affected his chances for promotion.

None of that applies with Tracy. His violation of the RoE and the border was neither unintentional, nor an error, nor did it have anything to do with his
assigned mission. In addition, he knowingly involved his subordinate officers in his own insubordinate behavior, which definitely would have adverse
consequences on their careers if it had ever come out other than from one of them at the time. Is this an accurate summary of the situation?

While I think that both men were wrong, I know which of the two's actions I consider more reprehensible.

> In the other, no ordinance was expended, no
> injuries were inflicted or sustained,

Fortunately for you guys, or you would have had to lie through your teeth to explain the ordnance, and the survivors would have been figuratively hung, drawn
and quartered by your superiors if any of you had been shot down in China.

> no lies were told and the
> incursion quite arguably could have been little other than a
> navigational error in an area far from supporting nav aids and with
> plenty of room for flexibility.

Oh, bull****, Ed! You told me (and your account in WTR agrees) that you knew perfectly well where you were, as did Tracy and the other members of your flight;
when you asked him, he said he'd gone there deliberately hunting for MiGs. He made the rest of you complicit in his disobeyment of orders for purely personal
reasons. By not turning him in you and all the other pilots in the flight failed to do _your_ duty, and condoned his illegal act. Every one of you knew
perfectly well that you'd be up to your necks in **** if you told the truth as to where you'd been, let alone why you'd been there, so none of you volunteered
the truth in your debrief, and lied instead. Is that a correct statement of the facts?

> It was a privilege to fly with Fred Tracy, to fly in Fred Tracy's
> squadron and to know him as an officer and a leader. Fred Tracy never
> lost a wingman in combat during that tour (and neither did I), and our
> squadron suffered remarkably low losses in a period in which other
> units flying the same mission were decimated.
>
> That is neither self-serving nor revisionist. It's simply the truth.

Sure. None of that changes any of the above facts. AFAIR Broughton didn't lose a wingman either (although he could have to flak or AAA), and I have yet to
hear from anyone who flew with him that didn't respect him as an officer and a leader. Obviously, my knowledge is hardly exhaustive; I lack personal knowledge
of the man nor have I talked with anyone directly who did so, but the accounts I've read by Hoblit and Wilson among others seem to respect him as both man,
officer and leader. We both agree that he's got a chip on his shoulder. Next time you see him, why don't you ask Tom Wilson (or anyone else who flew with him
in that period) for his opinion on Broughton direct?

Guy