Greatest Strategic Air Missions?

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
| Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
| From: "Leadfoot"
| Date: 8/21/2004 5:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the listing
of
| missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted" type
| missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was
looking
|
| How about missions that changed the world? Battle of Britain comes to
mind.
|
|
| Arthur Kramer




If (in this case) we draw a difference between 'mission' and 'campaign' ,
which is what the BoB really was, the significant mission on both sides,
would have been the decision to bomb each others' capital city.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
| Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
| From: "Leadfoot"
| Date: 8/21/2004 5:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the
listing
of
| missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted" type
| missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was
looking
|
| How about missions that changed the world? Battle of Britain comes to
mind.

Thats a campaign, not a mission

|
|
| Arthur Kramer




If (in this case) we draw a difference between 'mission' and 'campaign' ,
which is what the BoB really was, the significant mission on both sides,
would have been the decision to bomb each others' capital city.

Or going after radar sites






Cheers


Dave Kearton

Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 8/21/2004 11:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: iiXVc.124448$sh.75819@fed1read06


"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
| Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
| From: "Leadfoot"
| Date: 8/21/2004 5:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the
listing
of
| missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted" type
| missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was
looking
|
| How about missions that changed the world? Battle of Britain comes to
mind.

Thats a campaign, not a mission

|


Same for Linebacker II.


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" wrote in message
...
Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 8/21/2004 11:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: iiXVc.124448$sh.75819@fed1read06


"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
| Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
| From: "Leadfoot"
| Date: 8/21/2004 5:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
| Message-id:
|
| Actually my intent in using the word "strategic" was to avoid the
listing
of
| missions such as "most aircraft shot down" or "most tanks busted"
type
| missions which while important to any war effort wasn't what I was
looking
|
| How about missions that changed the world? Battle of Britain comes to
mind.

Thats a campaign, not a mission

|


Same for Linebacker II.

Some one else posted linebacker II not me. I did consider it and decided it
was a campaign not a mission when I started the thread



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

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:34:00 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


Thats a campaign, not a mission

Same for Linebacker II.

Some one else posted linebacker II not me. I did consider it and decided it
was a campaign not a mission when I started the thread


I'd think that maybe 11 days might be closer to a battle, but if you
want it to be called campaign, then let's just go with December
18/19th night. One hundred fifty BUFF sorties scheduled and most of
them flown into an area the size of Rhode Island. Accompanied by a
bunch of F-111's against the airfields and followed up with the full
force of all the USAF/USN airplanes in theater the next day, hitting
virtually every worthwhile (and many sub-worthwhile) targets in RP VI
within 24 hours.

Looked pretty impressive from my seat.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:34:00 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

Thats a campaign, not a mission

Same for Linebacker II.

Some one else posted linebacker II not me. I did consider it and decided it
was a campaign not a mission when I started the thread

I'd think that maybe 11 days might be closer to a battle, but if you
want it to be called campaign, then let's just go with December
18/19th night. One hundred fifty BUFF sorties scheduled and most of
them flown into an area the size of Rhode Island. Accompanied by a
bunch of F-111's against the airfields and followed up with the full
force of all the USAF/USN airplanes in theater the next day, hitting
virtually every worthwhile (and many sub-worthwhile) targets in RP VI
within 24 hours.

Looked pretty impressive from my seat.

No doubt, Ed.

I'd call the whole Linebacker II campaign a strategic success. As I
remember, the North Vietnamese had walked away from the Paris negotiations,
and had to be 'persuaded' to come back. Seems like taking the gloves off
worked.

I don't know how long we could have sustained that level of losses,
specially the BUFFs, but I'm reasonably sure the NV thought we'd go as long
as we had to. If only we'd done it earlier...

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:28:09 -0600, George Ruch
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I'd think that maybe 11 days might be closer to a battle, but if you
want it to be called campaign, then let's just go with December
18/19th night. One hundred fifty BUFF sorties scheduled and most of
them flown into an area the size of Rhode Island. Accompanied by a
bunch of F-111's against the airfields and followed up with the full
force of all the USAF/USN airplanes in theater the next day, hitting
virtually every worthwhile (and many sub-worthwhile) targets in RP VI
within 24 hours.

Looked pretty impressive from my seat.

No doubt, Ed.

I'd call the whole Linebacker II campaign a strategic success. As I
remember, the North Vietnamese had walked away from the Paris negotiations,
and had to be 'persuaded' to come back. Seems like taking the gloves off
worked.

I don't know how long we could have sustained that level of losses,
specially the BUFFs, but I'm reasonably sure the NV thought we'd go as long
as we had to. If only we'd done it earlier...

The loss level dropped abruptly after day six and although several
more BUFFs were lost in the remaining five days, the near total
destruction of the NVN air defense system means that the campaign
could have been sustained until the level of the 1964 LeMay
prescription--"back to the stone age." On day six, I was part of a
Hunter/Killer flight supporting a day strike to Hanoi. We orbited
Bullseye (Hanoi geographic center) for more than 25 minutes at six
thousand feet over a solid undercast--a prescription for almost
certain disaster a week earlier.

The question about how it might have turned out had we done it earlier
is certainly one for extended debate, but that was then and this is
now. The huge difference was that during the period in question, there
was a significant doubt about what would inadvertently trigger
intervention by the Soviets or the PRC and start the slippery slide to
nuclear exchange.

Bottom line for consideration, however, is that the restraint
exercised by the Nixon administration in terminating the campaign
after eleven days when an agreement was reached seems to put into
question the assertions of atrocities, war crimes, carpet-bombing, etc
instituted from the highest levels of command.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

George Ruch wrote in message . ..

...

I'd call the whole Linebacker II campaign a strategic success. As I
remember, the North Vietnamese had walked away from the Paris negotiations,
and had to be 'persuaded' to come back. Seems like taking the gloves off
worked.


What was the issue in Paris that the NV refused to accept before
Linebacker II, and to which they agreed afterward?

--

FF