If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. No. The Convair F-102 was the interceptor of choice in the earlier part of direct US military operations in Vietnam. In mid-1968, the USAF was running short of experienced F-102 drivers. Not surprising, since by that time the ANG had been the primary operator of that aircraft for some years. Guard pilots were sought to volunteer for 90 or 180 day tours to fill out the F-102 squadrons. That program was called Palace Alert. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of other Guard involvement in Vietnam, but that's all I'm aware of. IF so, T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_ no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam. Yup. But that was a policy decision made by President Johnson. The joint chiefs wanted to employ the Guard and ANG as early as 1964. LBJ could have changed his policy at any time, and by March 1968 it was known that someone other than Johnson would be president in January 1969. Perhaps someone that didn't agree with Johnson's policy. Then my guess would be wrong, which is a chronic problem with guessing. Can you name the instructor, or recall where you heard/read that? His name was Maurice H. Udell. http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...cle_5025.shtml |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... Consider, if you will: 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton, with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional muster. Hell, the draft didn't pass Constitutional muster! Yes it did. Though my guess is you're no more than half serious: Have you ever heard the saying that the First Amendment does not protect a man's right shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater? There are variations on that, but the original, or at least the most famous appears in the majority decision written by Chief Justice of the USSC, Oliver Wendel Holmes in a ruling which upheld the treason conviction of man who agued that Conscription was unconstitutional, and advocated draft resistance, even after the draft was ruled to be not unconstitutional by the USSC. Inasmuch as the best basis for holding the draft to be unconstitutional is the 13th amendment, which was passed during the Reconstruction of a Union that had survived in no small measure due to the institution of conscription, it seems likely that the ruling was consistent with the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments, regardless of the specifics of the wording. The draft is indisputedly involuntary and I daresay that few who have been drafted would argue that the subsequent experience is anything other than servitude. However the term, 'involuntary servitude' had been used as a euphemism for slavery for some time before the Civil War and was never specifically applied to military service by draftees so it seems the USSC was on solid ground. -- FF |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... The following was extracted from http://www.greaterthings.com "At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small amount of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once again to overcome his lack of readiness, or perhaps safe in the knowledge that his request would certainly be rejected." Right. They needed F-102 pilots to fly reconnaissance missions. I would have thought RF-101 or RF-4 or even RF-84 pilots would have been preferable to F-102 pilots for reconnaissance missions. Silly me. I believe there were some National Guard troops who served in VN. Cong. Gephardt (D-Mo), for one, was in the Missouri ANG and served in VN. What's your source for that? I can find no mention of Vietnam service in any of Gephardt's online biographies. If he was truly a Vietnam veteran I'd expect it would be trumpeted loudly. Gephardt served in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1971 . He was a legal affairs officer with the 131st Combat Support Squadron based in St. Louis. The 131st CSG was part of the 131st Tactical Fighter Wing, as was the 110th Tactical Fighter Squadron, equipped with F-100s. Four ANG F-100 squadrons deployed to Vietnam in 1968 for 11 month combat tours, but the 110th TFS was not one of them. It was not called to federal service at any time during Gephardt's tour. That may be true, but he undoubtedly was the only President who lied about it. Lied about what? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
... Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training" assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion. I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the NYT. Have they been posted online? Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litary_records http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it certainly is not clear to me. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif ... or (b) they volunteered for active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted). Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able to find it just now. This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'? Was PAD related to the SAC in any way? ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? -- FF |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... (Snip) ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. The last time I looked, the USMC did NOT train its pilots. They received their training from the Navy; I never heard of Marines being trained by either the Army or the AF. George Z. Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... ... Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training" assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion. I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the NYT. Have they been posted online? Not to my knowledge. But another poster has included a rather detailed analysis of Bush's records that does seem to support the contention that he attended sufficient days of training each year. Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litary_records http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html Looks like the former kind of makes the latter immaterial, and that he did perform enough required duty to receive credit for "good" years. This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it certainly is not clear to me. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif Hard to read it, but it appears to be nothing more than an acknowledgement statement--the undersigned acknowledges he has been informed that he has to perform IAW whatever regfulation and faces potential penalties if he does not do so. Not an uncommon kind of transaction in the military. ... or (b) they volunteered for active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted). Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able to find it just now. That refers to the statement he signed upon initially entering the service. As has been pointed out elsewhere by others, signing such a statement upon service entry, for a guy going into a Guard unit, is not out of line. He had enlisted into a vacancy in a particular unit, not into the Air Force-as-a-whole as active duty personnel do. As someone else has already mentioned regarding this, it is likely that he was told something to the effect, "Nah, you are joining this ANG unit, so don't check the "am willing" block for overseas service". This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'? Palace Alert was a program where ANG F-102 pilots volunteered for extended active duty periods (six months, IIRC) flying F-102's in active component squadrons. The USAF was getting short of F-102 pilots in the later sixties, so the ANG was a source for fleshing out that requirment. Palace Alert could find the ANG volunteer serving at any number of F-102 bases (see: www.philippecolin.net/Gmb.html ), including those in SEA. ISTR Bush mentioned in his autobiography that he and a buddy signed up for the program but were eventually told they lacked the experience that was required. Some folks (one rather loud mouthed yet poorly informed old coot in this NG being among the worst) claim that he nefariously *knew* he would not be qualified for the program and dreamed this up as a way of being able to say he volunteered for overseas duty when he knew it would not happen. But in fact the determination of how much experience was required would have been based upon how many pilots had volunteered at that point, and how many slots the ANG was tasked to fill--here is an excerpt concerning an ANG second lieutenant F-102 pilot who found himself serving in Iceland with the 57th FIS while the bulk of the squadron was undergoing transition to the F-4: "...what is believed to be the last F-102 intercept was made by 2nd Lt. Grant E. Bollen. Lt. Bollen was an ANG pilot that volunteered along with four other ANG pilots to go on an open ended TDY to Iceland to replace "Deuce drivers" that were in the USA, converting to the F-4. His arrival caused some consternation in Keflavik, because 2nd lieutenants were not to be posted to Iceland. He had 500 hours in the 102, but he was not allowed to stand alert at first and states that "I had to be escorted by a major everywhere I went". www.verslo.is/baldur/57th_fis/57th.htm Was PAD related to the SAC in any way? No, it was an ADC (Air Defense Command) mission. ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. I did not write that. Yeah, you'd have to wonder what the problem with their own pipeline was, or what other considerations were taken into account (i.e., this was arounf the time the USMC started to get the UH-1N, so piggybacking Huey training on the Army's UH-1 training program would have made some sense). Either way, the issue is meaningless to the GWB situation. Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? Not really. The F-102 was never really intended to be anything other than a point defense interceptor do defend against enemy bomber attacks. It did not have the capability of carrying the best short range AAM we had (Sidewinder), and it was rather pitiful in the ground attack role (which some did actually perform in Vietnam). Nor was it designed to really mix it up with enemy fighters. Baugher's site indicates that two were lost to AAA, and one to a Mig-21. Another fifteen were operational losses not related to combat (can't recall if that includes those destroyed in saper/rocket attacks on their bases). It continued on in active service with the ANG until the 74-76 timeframe, when the last were withdrawn from service; the Turks and Greeks flew them for a few more years, with one rumored encounter between a couple of Turkish F-102's and Greek F-5's (IIRC) in 1974. Brooks -- FF |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines developed the concept of close air support in "banana Wars' of the late 20's and early 30's! Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? They flew anything that they could get off of the ground down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of Tucson, AZ. We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3). The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens around. They were full of patches from bullet holes. The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the Aussies also flew. The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until late 1965??? And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo haulers. -- Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail me) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a rifleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines developed the concept of close air support in "banana Wars' of the late 20's and early 30's! Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? They flew anything that they could get off of the ground down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of Tucson, AZ. We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3). The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens around. They were full of patches from bullet holes. The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the Aussies also flew. The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until late 1965??? And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo haulers. -- Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail me) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... snip ... This was at a time when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools. It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own) rather than being hard pressed for them. DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines develoved the concept of close air support in "bannana Wars' of the late 20's and early 30's! Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations. If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some were lost in combat, does it not? They flew anything that they could get off of the ground down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of Tucson, AZ. We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3). The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens around. They were full of patches from bullet holes. The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the Aussies also flew. The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until late 1965??? And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo haulers. -- Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail me) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"* * Chas" wrote in message om... We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3). There were no R4Ds in 1964-65, and it was C-47 and DC-3. The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the Aussies also flew. It's A-26, B-26, and B-57, and the WWII era B-26 was out of the inventory shortly after WWII ended. And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo haulers. C-123. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 28th 04 11:30 AM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aerobatics | 0 | August 28th 04 11:28 AM |