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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"dvick" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent. I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on. Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens. But don't let that bit of fact get in your way. we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way. redc1c4, not likely, but there's always one optimist in the crowd.... %-) -- A Troop - 1st Squadron 404th Lemming Armored Cavalry "Velox et Capillatus!" |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"redc1c4" wrote in message ... Daryl Hunt wrote: "dvick" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent. I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on. Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens. But don't let that bit of fact get in your way. we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way. Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't make it any less. We have beaten this to death. Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"redc1c4" wrote in message ... Daryl Hunt wrote: "dvick" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent. I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on. Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens. But don't let that bit of fact get in your way. we're still waiting for your first bit of fact to come our way. Already presented it. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't make it any less. We have beaten this to death. Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts. now you're channeling V-Man? you are desperate.......... who is Keyser Sose, BTW? %-) redc1c4, permanent party here @ FSB UMA -- A Troop - 1st Squadron 404th Lemming Armored Cavalry "Velox et Capillatus!" |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Daryl Hunt wrote:
(massive snipage, fore and aft) You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of Buckley in the late 50s. so i asked the folks who would know: To: AFHSO Research Subject: P 38 Lightning question when was it pulled from active duty? their reply: The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to Honduras. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"): thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up: were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of front line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?: they said: I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or reserve units. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic. either that, or you're a congenital liar. redc1c4, (yes, this is a SPNAK! %-) -- A Troop - 1st Squadron 404th Lemming Armored Cavalry "Velox et Capillatus!" |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"redc1c4" wrote in message ... Daryl Hunt wrote: (massive snipage, fore and aft) You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of Buckley in the late 50s. so i asked the folks who would know: To: AFHSO Research Subject: P 38 Lightning question when was it pulled from active duty? their reply: The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to Honduras. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"): thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up: were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of front line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?: they said: I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or reserve units. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic. either that, or you're a congenital liar. I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight come from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except, "Plane" in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again. I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or reserve units means that they don't have that information available either way. So, you piece of mudslinging, sucking garbage, crawl back under your rock. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message ... I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight come from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except, "Plane" in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again. From http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp "The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type was phased out of service in 1949." Keith |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Daryl Hunt" wrote in message ... I can see you are still lying your ass off. Just where did that flight come from? I doubt if I would remember being able to ID anything except, "Plane" in 1949 if even that. Guess Rod Stirling must have been around for that phenonema. And since you didn't post the real McCoy URL or Letter so that it can be followed up on, you are just making things up once again. From http://www.afa.org/magazine/gallery/p-38.asp "The last P-38 was delivered in September 1945, and the type was phased out of service in 1949." Yes. The operative word was Active Duty. Buckley Air Field was Guard up to 2001. Buckley has just recently become and Active Duty AFB in 2001. Your information does coincide with the aholes info. The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to Honduras. Front line usually means Active Regulars. But to make a point, look up the reasons that the P-47, P-51 and the P-38 was shoved into holes during Korea. In order to get the P-80s, they had to get rid of the Prop Jobs. That would place all of them well past 1949. Of course, The 51st Fighter Wing of Osan AB, Korea had a few P-38s as in 1950. They were trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Lose one and you get a brand new F-80. Didn't take them long. They also had a few P-51s as well. The 82nd Fighter Wing used the P-38s for Escort Duties as well during Korea before they were replaced. There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the buried many of them to get the new jets. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:44:56 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:
There isn't a lot of info on the P-38, the P-47 or the P-51 but just enough to verify that they were still in service in 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War. But talking with some Korean Air Vets, they stated that the buried many of them to get the new jets. You should email these folks to help them set their records straight: Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR Dave -- You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us! US Army Signal Corps!! www.geocities.com/davidcasey98 B Co, 404th Signal Battalion, 404th Infantry Division (Lemming) "We *are* UMA!" |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article , redc1c4 says...
Daryl Hunt wrote: (massive snipage, fore and aft) You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of Buckley in the late 50s. so i asked the folks who would know: To: AFHSO Research Subject: P 38 Lightning question when was it pulled from active duty? their reply: The P-38 was taken out of front line service in 1949. Many were sold to private individuals. 50 were sold to Italy and 12 were ceded to Honduras. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR and when i asked, (so you couldn't claim they belonged to the "Guards"): thanks for your quick response... i have one quick follow-up: were any retained by Reserve units, or does the phrase "taken out of front line service" mean that the AF stopped all use at that time?: they said: I can find no mention of P-38's being flown by Air Force guard or reserve units. Air Force History Support Office Reference and Analysis Branch AFHSO/HOR so, we're not sure what you were taking/drinking/smoking back in the day, anymore than we are now. the only possible conclusions are that it is some gooooooooooood **** or you're hypoxic. either that, or you're a congenital liar. redc1c4, (yes, this is a SPNAK! %-) -- IIRC when WWII was over the USAF had a choice between scrapping the P-51 or scrapping the P-47, since the P-51 was a "sexier" plane, they chose the P-51 (desiginated F-51 later on). When Korea rolled around, the prop jobs were assigned CAS duties. The Navy and the Marines were using air-cooled Corsairs (not the SLUF Daryl, the original one - the bent wing bird) and enjoyerd a greater success with them than the USAF did. Why? Because an air-cooled engine is a lot more rugged when hit by groundfire than a liquid-cooled engine is. BTW red, he'll just claim that the Air Force History Support Office is full of it... -Tom "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for" UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |