B-29 copied by the Soviets???
mark_orr
by the USSR, the airplane they used was a ringer for the B-29. Did they
copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
Thx
Mark
jwe...@negia.net
Yes, they copied a B-29 they impounded after it landed,
either in Russia or China, after a raid on Japan. I think
Tupolev was the manufacturer.
Suzanne Archibald
>
>
> Yes, they copied a B-29 they impounded after it landed,
> either in Russia or China, after a raid on Japan. I think
> Tupolev was the manufacturer.
Yes, the Tupolev Tu-4 Bull, and I believe they are still being used
by China (though for weather research if I remember correctly.)
Suzanne
Martin Sagara
: In article <4l3f2t$p...@wellspring.us.dg.com>,
: mark...@dgc.ceo.dg.com (mark_orr) wrote:
: >Did they copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
: Yes, they copied a B-29 they impounded after it landed,
: either in Russia or China, after a raid on Japan. I think
: Tupolev was the manufacturer.
Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
Research Associate understood so little,
Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
http://www.abwam.com/air&space
msa...@rmii.com
Andrew McNeil
the first soviet A-bomb, this is pretty amazing.
The same plane was used by both Super-Powers to
drop the first airborne bomb.
Andrew McNeil
Alexei Gretchikhine
> : either in Russia or China, after a raid on Japan. I think
> : Tupolev was the manufacturer.
>
> Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
Two minor corrections.
1. Tupolev is a design bureu and not a manufacturer. Till very recently the
infrostructure of the Soviet aerospace industry was very different from
western. It is today Tupolev allied with one of the aircraft factories in
the Kazan and backed by few banks changed name to ANTK Tupolev. Now you
can actually say _manufactured by Tupolev_.
2. Note that proper abreviation all soviet types is capital first letter
only: Tu-4 rather than TU-4, Il-14 rather than IL-14 etc, but MiG-21
rather MIG-21 and Mig-21.
_____________________ _________________________________________
Alexei GRETCHIKHINE agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
Avekcen~ LPEhNXNH http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch
Russian Aviation Page http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html
sed quando submoventa erit ignorantia
_____________________ _________________________________________
Alexei Gretchikhine
I am suspisious that yet one more superpower used Tu-4 for the
same purpose. Simon, any ideas?
Jussi Saari
On 17 Apr 1996, mark_orr wrote:
> I was watching a documentary regarding the first air drop of an A-bomb
> by the USSR, the airplane they used was a ringer for the B-29. Did they
> copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
The Russians did indeed copy the B-29 and named it the Tu-4 Bull. I
think it was pretty soon replaced by Bears, though.
Jussi
Chris Jamesson
Martin Sagara wrote:
>Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
See ya,
Chris
Chris E. Becht
And the unfortunate habit of the early models to catch fire
spontaneously.
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> msa...@rainbow.rmii.com (Martin Sagara) wrote:
> Martin Sagara wrote:
> >Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
> Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
Yet another urban myth. Few others:
The damage from air-defence guns (holes in one of the wing roots) were
copied.
The scroll tunnel connecting cockpit and rear parts of the bomber was
half green and half white, because Boeing run out of one of the color
when painting this particular specimen.
Tupolev team was thinking of keeping USAAF insignia instead of the red stars.
But these are nothing but myths...
jeff kan lee
> Chris Jamesson (fly...@gil.com.au) wrote:
> : msa...@rainbow.rmii.com (Martin Sagara) wrote:
> : Martin Sagara wrote:
> : >Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
> : Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
>
> And the unfortunate habit of the early models to catch fire
> spontaneously.
>
> --
> Life is like a cow.
> You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
> But, umm... different somehow.
I have seen photos of the Chinese version with jet prop engines.
Geoff Miller
Jussi Saari <jms...@zombie.oulu.fi> writes:
> The Russians did indeed copy the B-29 and named it the Tu-4 Bull.
Not to be pedantic, but a minor nit: the Russians named it the Tu-4;
NATO named it the Bull.
> I think it was pretty soon replaced by Bears, though.
Not directly. I've read about a very early Tupolev jet bomber that
was known to NATO as the Bosun. I don't remember any details about
it, though. Perhaps it was one of those flash-in-the-pan early Soviet
designs that never saw widespread deployment.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Andy Dingley
>Yes, they copied a B-29 they impounded after it landed,
>either in Russia or China, after a raid on Japan.
I understand that both China and the USSR studied B29s and then
operated copies.
Were these both Soviet Tu4 "Bull", or did the Chinese
make their own copy ?
Emmanuel.Gustin
: I was watching a documentary regarding the first air drop of an A-bomb
: by the USSR, the airplane they used was a ringer for the B-29. Did they
: copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
Yes, they built their own version of it, the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. As
pattern aircraft they used a B-29 that had been interned during the war,
after an attack on Japan. The USSR was neutral in the conflict between the
USA and Japan, so they kept the aircraft.
Contrary to what is often thought, the Tu-4 was not an exact copy. They
had to reverse-engineer the entire thing for many reasons, from the
trivial --- the Soviet industry produced metal plate and screws in metric
sizes! --- to the intricate. For example, they were not able to
manufacture the integral wing fuel tanks of the B-29, and they used 23mm
Nudelman-Suranov cannon for defensive armament.
Emmanuel Gustin
Alexei Gretchikhine
> I understand that both China and the USSR studied B29s and then
> operated copies.
>
> Were these both Soviet Tu4 "Bull", or did the Chinese
> make their own copy ?
USSR exported few of Tu-4s to China (including turboprop model which
never went into service in USSR). I am not sure if the Tu-4 production
was lisenced or Chinese copied a copy of B-29. I know that they performed
some significant modifications of few of them.
Eric Jimerson
writes:
>I was watching a documentary regarding the first air drop of an A-bomb
>by the USSR, the airplane they used was a ringer for the B-29. Did
they
>copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
>
>Thx
>Mark
Yup. Called the Tu-4 "Bull". Copied from B29s that flew to
Russia from Japan. I guess the entire line of Sov Prop/Turboprop
bombers (Bears) were based off of it. Of course, if you ask Moscow...
it was a Russian Invention that the Capatilist Pig Americans copied...
Jagdpanther
Steven Janaro
>I was watching a documentary regarding the first air drop of an A-bomb
>by the USSR, the airplane they used was a ringer for the B-29. Did they
>copy the B-29??? Does anyone out there know anything about this??
>
>Thx
>Mark
I believe the Soviets had a B-29 that was held after WWII in Siberia.
It was copied bolt for bolt and became either the Tu2 or Tu4 bomber.
Steve
4/18/96
Will Lawrence
: Not directly. I've read about a very early Tupolev jet bomber that
: was known to NATO as the Bosun. I don't remember any details about
: it, though. Perhaps it was one of those flash-in-the-pan early Soviet
: designs that never saw widespread deployment.
You aren't referring to the Bison, are you? That was a contemporary of
Bear. Then there was Beagle, a twin-engined jet bomber that the Chinese
were STILL using fairly recently (i.e. the early 80s).
Sorry, my nomenclature on sov bombers is shaky. I know that Bison
was M-4, as per Gunston's series in AI.
Just my two cents...
--
=============================================================
| W. Lawrence | __________________________ |
| aka Darcangel | \ ________ // \ ________ / |
|========================| \ ______ // \ ______ / |
| ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca | \ ____ // \ ____ / |
| HALifax, N.S. | \____//_____ \____/ |
|========================| |
| "Can't this car go any | |
| faster/Cause I can | ---- |
| still see where I am" | |
| - Dada | \__/ |
=============================================================
Simon Shpilfoygel
>On 17 Apr 1996, Andrew McNeil wrote:
>> If a Tu-4 Bull "Superfortressvich" was used to drop
>> the first soviet A-bomb, this is pretty amazing.
AFAIR ( not that I was present ) the first Soviet A-bomb wasn't dropped. It was
installed on top of a structure of some kind. They droped their first H-bomb
but from a Tu-16.
>> The same plane was used by both Super-Powers to
>> drop the first airborne bomb.
>I am suspisious that yet one more superpower used Tu-4 for the
>same purpose. Simon, any ideas?
Let's see - the Chinese obtained the bomb in mid-60s. By that time
they must have had an ample supply of imported or domestic Tu-16s so I doubt
it. OTOH, I wonder whether a Tu-4 was used to drop the first South African
nuke ;-)
Hope that helps,
Simon
---
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/5/90
Simon Shpilfoygel
>jwe...@negia.net wrote:
>Yes, they built their own version of it, the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. As
>pattern aircraft they used a B-29 that had been interned during the war,
According to Tupolev, there were three B-29s, one of which was made airworthy
by cannibalizing the others. BTW, the 'Superfortresski' was second aircraft
designated Tu-4: the first Tupolev-built Superfortress was referred to as
Fourth Bomber or B-4 ( after three US-built ones ) eventually the number 4
stuck to the model and became its official designation instead of, say, Tu-12.
>after an attack on Japan. The USSR was neutral in the conflict between the
>USA and Japan, so they kept the aircraft.
>Contrary to what is often thought, the Tu-4 was not an exact copy. They
>had to reverse-engineer the entire thing for many reasons, from the
>trivial --- the Soviet industry produced metal plate and screws in metric
Yeah, that was a major challenge. More funny, the first batch of Tu-4s got
custom-ordered parachutes: Soviet parachutes couldn't fit into US-standard
seats ( and vice versa ) so the orders [ to copy everything or else ] were
followed exactly and both seats and parachutes were copied. The subsequent
batches of Tu-4 got standard issue seats and parachutes ...
>sizes! --- to the intricate. For example, they were not able to
>manufacture the integral wing fuel tanks of the B-29, and they used 23mm
>Nudelman-Suranov cannon for defensive armament.
Just my $0.02,
Simon
---
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
Dan Ford
Yes, and very likely it was the same bombovtich as well. Not great
original thinkers, the Soviets, but they sure caught up in a hurry :)
- Dan
On 17 Apr 1996, Andrew McNeil wrote:
> If a Tu-4 Bull "Superfortressvich" was used to drop
> the first soviet A-bomb, this is pretty amazing.
> The same plane was used by both Super-Powers to
> drop the first airborne bomb.
>
> Andrew McNeil
>
>
Shemyadog
Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> writes:
>
>> Were these both Soviet Tu4 "Bull", or did the Chinese
>> make their own copy ?
>
>USSR exported few of Tu-4s to China (including turboprop model which
>never went into service in USSR). I am not sure if the Tu-4 production
>was lisenced or Chinese copied a copy of B-29. I know that they performed
>some significant modifications of few of them.
I've been doing some research on Chinese military aviation for my Masters
thesis, and I've never seen any reference to Chinese production of the
Tu-4, or to a Chinese designation for it (unlike the H-5, which is the
Chinese version of the Il-28, or the H-6, which is the Chinese-built
Tu-16).
Chris Douglas
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Chris Jamesson wrote:
>
> > msa...@rainbow.rmii.com (Martin Sagara) wrote:
> > Martin Sagara wrote:
> > >Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
> > Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
>
>
> The damage from air-defence guns (holes in one of the wing roots) were
> copied.
> The scroll tunnel connecting cockpit and rear parts of the bomber was
> half green and half white, because Boeing run out of one of the color
> when painting this particular specimen.
> Tupolev team was thinking of keeping USAAF insignia instead of the red stars.
>
> But these are nothing but myths...
>
Why do you say that? Considering the tyranny of Stalin (arguably the most
evil man that has ever lived), and the fear he espoused in his subjects, the
motivation for the workers to replicate these artifacts appears to be there.
Granted there's likely little specific evidence that it did happen, but what
have you heard that makes you certain it didn't?
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You have escaped from it, but it is there, always following you.
It is there, in your heart and your mind, in the very depths and
recesses of your being. You have covered it up, escaped, run
away; but it is there. And the mind must experience it like a
purgation by fire. --Krishnamurti.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Miller
ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Will Lawrence) writes:
> You aren't referring to the Bison, are you?
Definitely not. These are two distinctly different aircraft.
The main thing I remember about the Bosun is that it had straight
wings and a big, squarish tail, similar in shape to the Douglas
D-558-1 Skystreak's. It was an earlier design than the Tu-16, and
looked it; it wasn't anywhere near as sleek. (I've always thought
that the Tu-16 was one of the most attractive airplanes ever designed.)
I'll check my references at home tonight and see if I can dig up any
info on the Bosun.
Michael Trout
> [snip]
> The USSR was neutral in the conflict between the
> USA and Japan [...]
That's a little misleading. The USSR and Japan had a "you leave
me alone and I'll leave you alone" pact that came about after the
Khalkin-Gol "incident" of 1939. The USA wasn't a factor at that
time.
At FRD's urging, Stalin agreed to violate this pact and attack
Japan three months after Germany surrendered. He did exactly that.
The resulting Soviet attack into Japanese-held Manchuria was one
of the most devastating and successful miltary operations in
history. Japan's largest and most powerful field army was
virtually wiped off the face of the earth in less than a week.
This was a major factor in Japan's decision to surrender.
--
################## cl...@freenet.carleton.ca ################
Michael D. Trout
New York State Talking Book and Braille Library
Albany, New York 12230
Dimitriy A. Levin
> msa...@rainbow.rmii.com (Martin Sagara) wrote:
> Martin Sagara wrote:
> >Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
> Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
> See ya,
> Chris
I've looked through some of the stuff I have on Tu-4 and it's really
amuzing to see through how much trouble Tupolev went to make B-29. They
had to rescale every single part to metric system. And I don't even want
to mention how much fun they'd had with the bolts, nuts, and wires.
--
Dimitriy A. Levin
Smoky Hill Internet Club
dle...@stega.smoky.org
http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
David J Sherlock
: On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Chris Jamesson wrote:
:
: > msa...@rainbow.rmii.com (Martin Sagara) wrote:
: > Martin Sagara wrote:
: > >Yes, this was the Tupolev TU-4 "Bull".
: > Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
: Yet another urban myth.
Don't know if this is a myth too but I recall reading somewhere that the
Soviets had some problems reproducing the compound curves of the B29's
glazed nose. Seems their plexiglass technology wasn't as far ahead as
the West's.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
David.
Andrew Jaremkow
>Geoff Miller (geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>: Not directly. I've read about a very early Tupolev jet bomber that
>: was known to NATO as the Bosun.
>You aren't referring to the Bison, are you?
"You say Bosun, I say Bison..."
The Tu-14 Bosun twin engine jet bomber first flew in 1947. It's
pretty much a look-alike of the Il-28 Beagle, but it was bigger,
heavier, and had less powerful engines, while carrying the same
payload. It wasn't a roaring success, but its longer range suited it
to naval operations, and it served in Naval Air Force squadrons
throughout the 50s as the Tu-14T. A reconaissance version, the Tu-14R,
was also produced. The tail gunner's position (2 x 23mm)wouldn't look
out of place on a B-17.
The Bosun is not to be confused with the much more impressive Mya-4
Bison strategic bomber, despite the similar reporting names.
Hope this helps.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
Paul C. Pokorny
agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU "Alexei Gretchikhine" writes:
> Yet another urban myth. Few others:
>
> The damage from air-defence guns (holes in one of the wing roots) were
> copied.
> The scroll tunnel connecting cockpit and rear parts of the bomber was
> half green and half white, because Boeing run out of one of the color
> when painting this particular specimen.
> Tupolev team was thinking of keeping USAAF insignia instead of the red stars.
I read these same stories in a book titled "The Liberators", written
by a Ukranian Army defector {Can't remember his name.} I thought that this was
a bit dicey with regard to fact. The author did include some pretty tragi-comic
stories about the "Liberation" of Prague in '68, tho...
--
That individual is happy who has accomodated his existence to his particular
character, will, and arbitrariness, so that he enjoys himself in his existence.
But world history is not the place for happiness.
-G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Chris Douglas <cdou...@origin.ea.com> wrote:
>Alexei Gretchikhine wrote:
>> > Absolutely, they even copied it down to a metal repair plate on the tail.
>>
>>
>> The damage from air-defence guns (holes in one of the wing roots) were
>> copied.
>> The scroll tunnel connecting cockpit and rear parts of the bomber was
>> half green and half white, because Boeing run out of one of the color
>> when painting this particular specimen.
>> Tupolev team was thinking of keeping USAAF insignia instead of the red stars.
>>
>>
>
>Why do you say that? Considering the tyranny of Stalin (arguably the most
>evil man that has ever lived), and the fear he espoused in his subjects, the
>motivation for the workers to replicate these artifacts appears to be there.
>Granted there's likely little specific evidence that it did happen, but what
>have you heard that makes you certain it didn't?
>
of one would be canciled out.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Don't know if this is a myth too but I recall reading somewhere that the
> Soviets had some problems reproducing the compound curves of the B29's
> glazed nose. Seems their plexiglass technology wasn't as far ahead as
> the West's.
>
> Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Ever wondered why none of Tu-4 followers had "greenhouse" cockpit?
"Superior" design was discarded very soon because crew complained about
reflections off the inside glass surfaces of the Tu-4 cockpit. I guess it
is very disturbing to spot a what seems like afterburner of the closing
interceptor and realize in couple of seconds that it is just a reflection
of one of the cockpit lights.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> writes:
>
> AFAIR ( not that I was present ) the first Soviet A-bomb wasn't dropped. It was
> installed on top of a structure of some kind. They droped their first H-bomb
> but from a Tu-16.
You might be right, but I tend to believe that Tu-4 was involved
in first AERIAL drop of A-bomb by USSR.
> >I am suspisious that yet one more superpower used Tu-4 for the
> >same purpose. Simon, any ideas?
>
> Let's see - the Chinese obtained the bomb in mid-60s. By that time
> they must have had an ample supply of imported or domestic Tu-16s so I doubt
I wonder which was used. Many years later Tu-4 airframe was
used to experiment with AW dispite that lots of home baked Tu-16 (H-6?) were
available.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Yes, and very likely it was the same bombovtich as well. Not great
> original thinkers, the Soviets, but they sure caught up in a hurry :)
Tell that to DoD. It looks like they wasted tonns of money asquiring
hardware designed by not original thinkers. BTW, "bombovtich" is the
most pathetic attempt to add russian flavour I have come across so far.
Hint: try to avoid using common jewish suffixes or at least spell them right.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> by cannibalizing the others. BTW, the 'Superfortresski' was second aircraft
> designated Tu-4: the first Tupolev-built Superfortress was referred to as
> Fourth Bomber or B-4 ( after three US-built ones ) eventually the number 4
> stuck to the model and became its official designation instead of, say, Tu-12.
Very interesting interpretation. But don't you think that an aircraft
from Tupolev which followed Tu-2 and was followed by Tu-12 (there
probably was/were Tu<12, but I am sleepy and don't remember at the
moment) should have been designated Tu-4?
B-4 does not fit neither prewar (lack of prefix, like in SB, TB etc) nor
more modern (for example Tu-X, La-Y etc) designation systems. It is too
"dry" to be internal designation as well.
From what I know, there were four B-29s which ended up on the Soviet
territory. Three force-landed after running out of fuel and one crashed
after crew bailed out.
Will Lawrence
: ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Will Lawrence) wrote:
: >Geoff Miller (geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: >: Not directly. I've read about a very early Tupolev jet bomber that
: >: was known to NATO as the Bosun.
: >You aren't referring to the Bison, are you?
: "You say Bosun, I say Bison..."
"Let's call the cold war off..."
: The Tu-14 Bosun twin engine jet bomber first flew in 1947. It's
: pretty much a look-alike of the Il-28 Beagle, but it was bigger,
: heavier, and had less powerful engines, while carrying the same
: payload. It wasn't a roaring success, but its longer range suited it
: to naval operations, and it served in Naval Air Force squadrons
: throughout the 50s as the Tu-14T. A reconaissance version, the Tu-14R,
: was also produced. The tail gunner's position (2 x 23mm)wouldn't look
: out of place on a B-17.
: The Bosun is not to be confused with the much more impressive Mya-4
: Bison strategic bomber, despite the similar reporting names.
: Hope this helps.
OK, cool. Having recently read Gunston's lovely series on the M-4, I
thought perhaps there was a typo; Guess the NATO naming personnel figured
the names wouldn't sound much alike on a radio.
NOW I understand, sensei...
Paul Tomblin
>Alexei Gretchikhine wrote:
>> But these are nothing but myths...
>>
>
>Why do you say that? Considering the tyranny of Stalin (arguably the most
Because your justification for saying that it did happen is that:
- It could have happened, there for it did happen, and
- Soviet aircraft engineers are such idiots that they couldn't tell what was
necessary and what was decoration or damage.
The first premise I'll dismiss out of hand, because that's the classic defense
of somebody who wants to believe an urban legend but doesn't have any
evidence.
The second premise is absolutely ludicrous. The Soviets had to re-engineer
the aircraft to use metric machining, metric fasteners and bolts, their own
sized guns and other armaments. They then had to figure out how to
manufacture this slightly different B-29 with no reference to how the original
was constructed, and make sure that any changes they made were still within
reasonable weight and balance and aerodynamic regimes.
The Soviets have proven themselves to be absolute geniuses in reverse
engineering, both in aircraft and computers. They weren't so bad at doing
their own designs either, so they had the expertise to tell the difference
between stress relief holes and bullet holes.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com)
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/">My home page</a>
"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which
he needs to demonstrate his superior skill" (Esp. with a 7 year old on board)
Paul Tomblin
>history. Japan's largest and most powerful field army was
>virtually wiped off the face of the earth in less than a week.
>This was a major factor in Japan's decision to surrender.
Credit where credit is due here - the Japanese army that the Soviet forces
blew through were not the elite army that took the ground in the first place.
They were weakened by cut supply lines thanks to US air and naval operations,
and demoralized. Not to mention that the A-Bomb had just been dropped on
Hiroshima, so I'm sure rumours were floating around about a miracle weapon
that could kill an entire city with just one airplane.
Dan Ford
> > The USSR was neutral in the conflict between the
> > USA and Japan [...]
>
> That's a little misleading. The USSR and Japan had a "you leave
> me alone and I'll leave you alone" pact that came about after the
> Khalkin-Gol "incident" of 1939. The USA wasn't a factor at that
> time.
The USSR was neutral in the Pacific War from Dec 8 1942 to August 9 1945.
It seized American planes that landed in Siberia and interned the pilots
from the Doolittle raid onward, tho as it became clear that Japan was
going to lose the war (and as the Lend Lease flowed) the Russians relented
on the pilots.
> At FRD's urging, Stalin agreed to violate this pact and attack
> Japan three months after Germany surrendered. He did exactly that.
Well ... it's more accurate to say that Stalin attacked Japan three days
after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, with the object of seizing
Manchuria and Korea (and stake a claim to a three-power occupation of
Japan) before the Japanese could effect a surrender.
> The resulting Soviet attack into Japanese-held Manchuria was one
> of the most devastating and successful miltary operations in
> history. Japan's largest and most powerful field army was
> virtually wiped off the face of the earth in less than a week.
The Kwantung Army was a shell, all its good men and much of its equipment
stripped out to shore up positions elsewhere. There was virtually no
communication between Manchuria and Tokyo by August 1945.
> This was a major factor in Japan's decision to surrender.
It was the Russian attack, not the speed of their advance, that
discouraged the Japanese, because they had counted on the Russians to
broker a more acceptable surrender.
- Dan
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Credit where credit is due here - the Japanese army that the Soviet forces
> blew through were not the elite army that took the ground in the first place.
> They were weakened by cut supply lines thanks to US air and naval operations,
> and demoralized. Not to mention that the A-Bomb had just been dropped on
> Hiroshima, so I'm sure rumours were floating around about a miracle weapon
> that could kill an entire city with just one airplane.
I would like to mention that Red Army had encounters with Japanese units
long before summer of 1945 (Hasan) and results were no less depressive
for those who fough under the rising sun. Also, I wonder if A-bomb was
dropped AFTER rapid advance of Red Army took place.
Mike Dembinski
Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>> AFAIR ( not that I was present ) the first Soviet A-bomb wasn't dropped. It was
>> installed on top of a structure of some kind. They droped their first H-bomb
>> but from a Tu-16.
>
>You might be right, but I tend to believe that Tu-4 was involved
>in first AERIAL drop of A-bomb by USSR.
>
First Soviet atom bomb was detonated on 29 August 1949 from a 30m (100 ft)
tower 70km south of Semipalatinsk-21. It yielded 20 kilotons
Second Soviet atom bomb was also exploded from a tower on 24 September
1951; it was half the weight of the first and yielded 40-50 kilotons. An
identical bomb was dropped from a Tu-4 on 18 October 1951; third bomb,
first aerial drop. The CIA concluded that this was an airburst.
First aerial drop of an H-bomb was not until 22 November 1955, from a Tu-16
(painted white to reflect blast), two years and three months after the
first ground-burst H-bomb test.
From David Holloway's 'Stalin and the Bomb', 1994, Yale Univ. Press (ISBN
0-300-06056-4)
'The first flight test of the Tu-4 took place in July 1947. The new bomber
had a range of 5,100 kilometres with a bomb load of 6-8 metric tonnes and a
flight speed of about 550 km/h at 10,000 metres. It was not quite as good a
plane as the B-29. Stalin authorised full production in 1948, even though
there were still problems to iron out with the design. More than a thousand
Tu-4s were built over the next five-six years and some of these were
modified to carry atomic bombs. The Tu-4 entered service with the
Long-Range Air Force in 1948, but Soviet designers soon realised it was
becoming obsolete.'
Michael Dembinski
Mike Dembinski
"Paul C. Pokorny" <Pa...@pokorny.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yet another urban myth. Few others:
>>
>> The damage from air-defence guns (holes in one of the wing roots) were
>> copied.
>> The scroll tunnel connecting cockpit and rear parts of the bomber was
>> half green and half white, because Boeing run out of one of the color
>> when painting this particular specimen.
>> Tupolev team was thinking of keeping USAAF insignia instead of the red stars.
>
> I read these same stories in a book titled "The Liberators", written
>by a Ukranian Army defector {Can't remember his name.} I thought that this was
>a bit dicey with regard to fact. The author did include some pretty tragi-comic
>stories about the "Liberation" of Prague in '68, tho...
'Viktor Suvorov' (pseudonym) wrote 'The Liberators', a tragi-comedy about
his experiences in the WarPac invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. While
most of the book sticks to incidents and anecdotes highlighting the sheer
stupidity/globe-threatening danger of the Soviet military, he includes one
chapter (which sits rather uneasily with the rest of the narative) about
the Tu-4.
I quote selectively: 'The B-29 was dismantled into thousands of the
smallest possible parts , which were distributed among the various
ministries, departments, desing bureaux and scientific research institutes
with the explicit commant to copy each detail, aggregate or device and then
to embark upon its mass-production within ten months... Difficulties arose
from the very beginning of the copying process. To begin with, the use of
the metric system of measuring was quite out of the question...Soviet trade
representatives in Canada, England and the USA started to buy up measuring
equipment in small quantities in order not to create suspicion. And the
retraining of thousands of engineers, technicians and workers, to swtich
over to calculating in inches, feet and pounds, began urgently.
About the 'urban myths': A little hole was found on the left wing of the
[first] aircraft. No aerodynamics or durability expert had he slightest
idead what the hell it was there for. There was no tube or wire attached to
it, and there was no equivalent to it on the right wing. The opinion of a
commission of experts was that the hole had been bored by a factory drill
at the same time as the other holes for the rivets. So what to do? Most
probably, the hole had been drilled by mistake, and later no one had
bothered to fill it in as it was much too small. The chief designer was
aked his opinion. 'Do the Amercans have it?' 'Yes.' 'So why the hell are
you asking me? Weren't we ordered to make them identical! Alike as two
peas?' So, for that reason, a very small hole indeed, made with the
thinnest possible drill, appeared on the left wing of all Tu-4 strategic
bombers...'
Similar tale about the crew tunnel: two thirds was painted chromate green,
the aft portion left in white primer. 'Later, this ratio was included in
all the instruction books on how to paint the interior of the bomber'.
About the stars: 'What kind of stars should be put on the mass-produced
aircraft - white American stars of red Soviet ones? If you put white stars,
you risk being shot as an enemy of the people. If you put red, first, it
will not be a copy, and second maybe Stalin is planning to use the bombers
against America, England or China, and therefore keep the American
markings.' The question went all the way up to Stalin himself: Beria (NKVD
chief, in charge of B-29 duplication project) 'told Stalin about the stars
as if it were a funny story and that by the way in which Stalin laughed at
the joke, Beria knew unerringly which stars should be used. The last
problem was solved and mass-production started...'
I'll leave it up to you to judge the credibility of 'Suvorov's' story.
The US successfully 'stretched' the B-29 into the B-50, and that stayed in
front-line medium bomber duties until replaced by the B-47. The Soviets
unsuccessfully stretched the Tu-4 'Bull' into the Tu-85 'Barge'. This had
bigger span, stepped nose, longer fuselage, more powerful radial engines
but did not attain production status. What eventually did supercede the
'Bull' was the Tu-95 (aka Tu-20) 'Bear'. Further fuselage stretch, swept
wings and tail surfaces, contra-rotating turbo-props, but at heart, an
American B-29 Superfortress that force-landed in Siberia...
Clifford R Krieger
: In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.960420...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU>,
: Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
<SNIP>
: Second Soviet atom bomb was also exploded from a tower on 24 September
: 1951; it was half the weight of the first and yielded 40-50 kilotons. An
: identical bomb was dropped from a Tu-4 on 18 October 1951; third bomb,
: first aerial drop. The CIA concluded that this was an airburst.
: From David Holloway's 'Stalin and the Bomb', 1994, Yale Univ. Press (ISBN
: 0-300-06056-4)
So, we have a B-29 for the US and a Tu-4 for the Soviet Union. Do we yet
have the PRC aircraft, or the British or the French? While I consider it
very unlikely, it would be interesting if the RAF used a WASHINGTON
instead of a CANBERRA or one of the V-Force.
Regards -- C R Krieger
Alexei Gretchikhine
> I'll leave it up to you to judge the credibility of 'Suvorov's' story.
His credibility is not very high. I had a chance to read both English and
Russian language versions of some of his books. I was struck by the
difference - some chapters in English version were gone. These chapters
were deaing with claims of the soviet technological superiority which would
sound a little far fetched for western public.
> The US successfully 'stretched' the B-29 into the B-50, and that stayed in
> front-line medium bomber duties until replaced by the B-47. The Soviets
> unsuccessfully stretched the Tu-4 'Bull' into the Tu-85 'Barge'. This had
> bigger span, stepped nose, longer fuselage, more powerful radial engines
> but did not attain production status. What eventually did supercede the
> 'Bull' was the Tu-95 (aka Tu-20) 'Bear'. Further fuselage stretch, swept
> wings and tail surfaces, contra-rotating turbo-props, but at heart, an
> American B-29 Superfortress that force-landed in Siberia...
You are missing Tu-6 (I believe) which was a direct analog of the B-50.
It was in service for many years with PRC, but never made it to Dalnya
Aviatsia.
The heart of the Tu-95 _is_ swept wings/tail surfaces and
countra-rotating props. Tu-95 followed Tu-16 (it is very similar just in
about every respect apart from propulsion). Saying that Tu-16 was a mod
of B-29 is like claiming that Concord was based on the Wright flier.
Paul C. Pokorny
mdemb...@delphi.com "Mike Dembinski" writes:
> 'Viktor Suvorov' (pseudonym) wrote 'The Liberators', a tragi-comedy about
> his experiences in the WarPac invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
-SNIP-
> he includes one
> chapter (which sits rather uneasily with the rest of the narative) about
> the Tu-4.
>
Cheers Mike,
Paul C. Pokorny
John Andrew Prime
agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU says...
>
>On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> Credit where credit is due here - the Japanese army that the Soviet
forces
>> blew through were not the elite army that took the ground in the first
place.
>> They were weakened by cut supply lines thanks to US air and naval
operations,
>> and demoralized. Not to mention that the A-Bomb had just been dropped
on
>> Hiroshima, so I'm sure rumours were floating around about a miracle
weapon
>> that could kill an entire city with just one airplane.
>
>I would like to mention that Red Army had encounters with Japanese units
>long before summer of 1945 (Hasan) and results were no less depressive
>for those who fough under the rising sun. Also, I wonder if A-bomb was
>dropped AFTER rapid advance of Red Army took place.
>
Japanese army units guarding the northern frontier, the second bomb a day
or two after. The swift advance of the Russian forces was the opposite of
what the Japanese had anticipated from their erstwhile friend -- even
though Stalin had given his advance notice of unilateral dropping of the
Russo-Japanese friendship, in one of the rare instances in which he
followed the letter of an international agreement. The Russian action,
while far from being a decisive blow leading to the conclusion of
hostilities, was a blow to Japanese moral and was a major factor in the
ultimate decision by the emperor to conclude hostilities.
John Andrew Prime
Shreveport, Louisiana
Near Barksdale Air Force Base
or "Bombers R Us"
Dan Ford
Note that aircraft had to be modified to carry the Hiroshima era bomb,
which was all that the US had at least through 1948. For the 29s the
modification was called Silver Plate. We had I believe 6 bombs and 15
aircraft; the exact figures are in the current issue of Air & Space.
So even if the Russians had copied the B-29 exactly, and Fat Man exactly,
they'd still have work to do.
The American bombs were the property of the Atomic Energy Commission; the
Silver Plate 29s were assigned to the 509th Bomb Group (Heavy) which was
the same outfit that bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki. In 1947 Truman released
one-half of the atomic bombs to the 509th for the test drops at Bikini
Atoll, though these were so successful that I think only two bombs were
used. In charge of Operation Crossbow at Bikini was the same Col Tibbets
who was the aircraft commander at Hiroshima. Evidently this information
was very closely held. (In 1948, Convair shipped the first B-36A
Peacemakers without the modifications that would have enabled them to
carry the hydrogen bomb.)
- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dan...@cris.com
Brewster Buffalo Archives <http://concentric.net/~danford/buff.html>
Dan Ford
> I would like to mention that Red Army had encounters with Japanese units
> long before summer of 1945 (Hasan) and results were no less depressive
> for those who fough under the rising sun. Also, I wonder if A-bomb was
> dropped AFTER rapid advance of Red Army took place.
The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima at about 8 a.m. 6 August. The
Russians jumped off at about 5 a.m. 9 August.
The only significant Russo-Japanese conflicts were the Russo-Japanese War,
Nomonhan and a few lesser border skirmishes in 1938-39 (large in numbers
involved but trivial in territory & duration), and the hundred-mile-a-day
gallop through Manchuria & Korea in August 1945. The Soviet Union remain
scrupulously neutral throughout the Pacific War, 8 Dec 1941 to daybreak on
9 Aug 1945.
Interestingly, when the Japanese war-gamed in the 1920s and 1930s, the
Soviet Union was always the preferred target for the army, while the
United States was the navy's opponent. When in the summer of 1941 Japan
decided to move south, this was a great political victory for the navy,
and it caught the army quite unprepared, since it had always expected to
fight a land war in a dry, cold climate, over short distances. Nakajima
had delivered only 50 of its long-range Ki-43 fighters to the army air
force by December 1942.
- Dan
MetaJohn
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> writes:
> . . . .We had I believe 6 bombs and 15
>aircraft; the exact figures are in the current issue of Air & Space. . .
.
We had exactly THREE bombs, if you are talking about the Atomic inventory
available for use in WWII. Bomb #1 was expended at Trinity test site 16
July 1945 in the "let there be light" test. Bombs #2 and #3 went into
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the Japanese had not surrendered it would have
been several months before Hanford produced enough Pu-239, or Oak Ridge
enough U-235 to make another A-bomb!! Even then I don't know how many
casings, electronics kits etc. were available, probably more than enough
for 6 bombs though. I don't know how many a/c were in the sqn. designated
by OPERATION SILVERPLATE but 15 seems reasonable. Procedure at that time
was for a three plane element to drop the bomb: a/c one preceeded the
other two to the primary target by at least an hour or so to report winds
over the target; a/c 2 carried and dropped the device; a/c 3 was
instrumented and camera-ready for covering the detonation. But none of
this has been a mystery for years now.
(Imagine a great LOGO here -->)
meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, Alive @ NTC Great Lakes
Michael Trout
> The USSR was neutral in the Pacific War from Dec 8 1942 to August 9 1945.
I still think this is misleading. To me, the "Pacific War" has always
been a subset of World War II. Between Kahlkin-Gol and Barbarossa, Japan
and the USSR kept a wary eye on each other with daggers carefully
at ready. After Barbarossa, Stalin's excellent spy system gave him the
information that Japan would not attack the USSR. This allowed Stalin
to strip the far east and move everything west to face the Germans,
as that front was clearly a life-or-death test for Soviet Russia.
After the Pearl Harbor attack, Stalin saw no reason to change that
policy. He would have loved to have spilled some Japanese blood, but
the Red Army was busy doing something else.
>> At FRD's urging, Stalin agreed to violate this pact and attack
>> Japan three months after Germany surrendered. He did exactly that.
>
> Well ... it's more accurate to say that Stalin attacked Japan three days
> after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, with the object of seizing
> Manchuria and Korea (and stake a claim to a three-power occupation of
> Japan) before the Japanese could effect a surrender.
I must disagree. The three-month delay was picked because that's how
long it would take for the Red Army to do a 180-degree turn, load
everything up on the Trans-Siberian Railway, move a few thousand miles
east, redeploy, and plan and supply an attack into Manchuria. This
redeployment alone--not even counting the attack--was a massive and
very impressive undertaking. It simply couldn't have been done in
three days. The A-bombing of Hiroshima occurred just before the end
of the three-month redeployment, and the timing was purely
coincidental.
I have no argument, however, with your view of Stalin's land-
grabbing imperialism. The attack on Manchuria seems more of a
callous attempt to grab as much of the goods as possible than of
a noble attempt to help end the war.
>> The resulting Soviet attack into Japanese-held Manchuria was one
>> of the most devastating and successful miltary operations in
>> history. Japan's largest and most powerful field army was
>> virtually wiped off the face of the earth in less than a week.
> The Kwantung Army was a shell, all its good men and much of its equipment
> stripped out to shore up positions elsewhere. There was virtually no
> communication between Manchuria and Tokyo by August 1945.
True, but that wasn't the Japanese view. Their hide-bound
military leaders could only think in terms of the Kwantung Army's
previous glories and power of years gone by. They thought of it
as the ultimate ace in the hole. When word came that it was gone,
the psychological impact was devastating.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>> front-line medium bomber duties until replaced by the B-47. The Soviets
>> unsuccessfully stretched the Tu-4 'Bull' into the Tu-85 'Barge'. This had
>> bigger span, stepped nose, longer fuselage, more powerful radial engines
>> but did not attain production status. What eventually did supercede the
>> 'Bull' was the Tu-95 (aka Tu-20) 'Bear'. Further fuselage stretch, swept
>> wings and tail surfaces, contra-rotating turbo-props, but at heart, an
>> American B-29 Superfortress that force-landed in Siberia...
>
>It was in service for many years with PRC, but never made it to Dalnya
>Aviatsia.
>
>The heart of the Tu-95 _is_ swept wings/tail surfaces and
>countra-rotating props. Tu-95 followed Tu-16 (it is very similar just in
>about every respect apart from propulsion). Saying that Tu-16 was a mod
>of B-29 is like claiming that Concord was based on the Wright flier.
B-29 developements in both structure, aerodynamics, and powerplants. The
Tu-16 may also be an offspring of the B-29 descendents and there were
some features in common between the Tu-95/20 and Tu-16, but to say that
the Tu-95/20 is solely a Tu-16 developement and had nothing to do with the
earlier machines simply ignores too much engineering carry over.
Dimitriy A. Levin
> from Tupolev which followed Tu-2 and was followed by Tu-12 (there
> probably was/were Tu<12, but I am sleepy and don't remember at the
> moment) should have been designated Tu-4?
>
B-29 were copied and built as Tupolev Tu-4.
--
Dimitriy A. Levin and the AirPage
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
>
>Note that aircraft had to be modified to carry the Hiroshima era bomb,
>which was all that the US had at least through 1948. For the 29s the
>aircraft; the exact figures are in the current issue of Air & Space.
>
>they'd still have work to do.
>
>The American bombs were the property of the Atomic Energy Commission; the
>Silver Plate 29s were assigned to the 509th Bomb Group (Heavy) which was
>the same outfit that bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki. In 1947 Truman released
>one-half of the atomic bombs to the 509th for the test drops at Bikini
>Atoll, though these were so successful that I think only two bombs were
>used. In charge of Operation Crossbow at Bikini was the same Col Tibbets
>who was the aircraft commander at Hiroshima. Evidently this information
>was very closely held. (In 1948, Convair shipped the first B-36A
>Peacemakers without the modifications that would have enabled them to
>carry the hydrogen bomb.)
Well, in 1948, there were no thermonuclear bombs. It wasn't untill the
emergency capable Mk17s came on line in '52 (?) that anyone had a handle
on how big a H-bomb even was.
Untill that time, the USAF had been flying the huge 44,000 lb super
grandslams as approximate H-bombs. The Mk17 was about the same size, but
subsequent weapons quickly got smaller both in size and yeild (there were
few targets that really needed a 10+ Megaton device)
Alexei Gretchikhine
> No. The Tu-95/Tu-20 was the direct and logical progression of the earlier
> B-29 developements in both structure, aerodynamics, and powerplants. The
I have hard time seeing which earlier B-29 developments of B-29
culminated in revolutionary (cause marrier prop to swept) swept wing and
countra-rotating turboprops (NK-12 vs 18 (?) cyl. piston of B-29?????).
Would you care to clarify your point?
Structure of the fuselage is about the only thing I can think of. May be
some navigation, radio and bombsight equipment. But not the aerodynamics
and powerplants.
> Tu-16 may also be an offspring of the B-29 descendents and there were
> some features in common between the Tu-95/20 and Tu-16, but to say that
> the Tu-95/20 is solely a Tu-16 developement and had nothing to do with the
> earlier machines simply ignores too much engineering carry over.
You are absolutely right. Tupolev design team has had a tremendous
experience with bombers way before B-29 was acquired and saying that B-29
is the only grandpa (or grandma for Americans) of every Tu aircraft is plain
wrong.
Mike Dembinski
Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>The heart of the Tu-95 _is_ swept wings/tail surfaces and
>countra-rotating props. Tu-95 followed Tu-16 (it is very similar just in
>about every respect apart from propulsion). Saying that Tu-16 was a mod
>of B-29 is like claiming that Concord was based on the Wright flier.
I somehow doubt that Concorde has the same fuselage diameter as the Wright
Flyer. I'm not claiming the Tu-95 (or -16 for that matter) is a *mod* of
the B-29; I am claiming that they are *direct descendents* of the B-29 and
the thinking that went behind it. That said, I think the Tu-95 is a
first-rate aircraft that has more than amply stood the test of time.
Mike Dembinski
Alexei Gretchikhine
> > Very interesting interpretation. But don't you think that an aircraft
> > from Tupolev which followed Tu-2 and was followed by Tu-12 (there
> > probably was/were Tu<12, but I am sleepy and don't remember at the
> > moment) should have been designated Tu-4?
> >
>
> B-29 were copied and built as Tupolev Tu-4.
I guess you are sleepy too;) What does it has to do with what I wrote?
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>available for use in WWII. Bomb #1 was expended at Trinity test site 16
>July 1945 in the "let there be light" test. Bombs #2 and #3 went into
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the Japanese had not surrendered it would have
>been several months before Hanford produced enough Pu-239, or Oak Ridge
>enough U-235 to make another A-bomb!! Even then I don't know how many
>casings, electronics kits etc. were available, probably more than enough
>for 6 bombs though. I don't know how many a/c were in the sqn. designated
>by OPERATION SILVERPLATE but 15 seems reasonable. Procedure at that time
>was for a three plane element to drop the bomb: a/c one preceeded the
>other two to the primary target by at least an hour or so to report winds
>over the target; a/c 2 carried and dropped the device; a/c 3 was
>instrumented and camera-ready for covering the detonation. But none of
>this has been a mystery for years now.
From good sources, there was a third weapon in the pipeline not more than
weeks behind the Nagasaki bomb, though it would have been a push to have
many more availabe before the end of the year. The inital batches of
atomics were pretty much semi-experimental devices with a lot of custom
work, but even so, there were a dozen or two parts worth of casts, over
and above the many ballistic "shapes" that were being dropped all over.
It wasn't untill after the 1947 "Crossroads" ops that there was any sign
of anything like real production bombs coming up, especially in that the
two "crossroads" bombs used up about a quarter of the entire stockpile of
weapons. It wasn't for lack of material by then, but the reduced tempo of
actual weapon production and the effort to come up with something a lot
more operationally practical than the inital contraptions.
Also, I though "Silverplate" was the post war program to convert B-29s to
atomic weapons carriers, not the atomic ops in the PTO?
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
doucumented over the years, but in basic, a straight wing, piston-driven
airscrew big bomber could only go so far and so fast, yet the basic
soundness of the structure was well-proven. Even putting bigger
turbo-prop engines would only get so much more speed and range out of the
design, so sweeping the wing and putting really big turbo-porps on it was
the ultimate answer.
The Tu-16 likely drew from the same engineering experiance base and the
previously mentioned features in common between them is no suprise.
On a more general note, engineers are a notoriously lazy bunch, and loath
to give up on a basic design that works and would rather streach it to
the limit than start over from scratch.
The Tupolev(sp?) group may well have been able to come up with a purely
in-house design for various things that would lead up to machines like the
Tu-16 and -20/95, but such would likely have been different in
important details and along a much different timetable. And like it or
not, the historical facts are that the inital data base for these
machines came out of Boeing's B-29.
Alexei Gretchikhine
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.960421...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU>,
> Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> >The heart of the Tu-95 _is_ swept wings/tail surfaces and
> >countra-rotating props. Tu-95 followed Tu-16 (it is very similar just in
> >about every respect apart from propulsion). Saying that Tu-16 was a mod
> >of B-29 is like claiming that Concord was based on the Wright flier.
>
> I somehow doubt that Concorde has the same fuselage diameter as the Wright
> Flyer. I'm not claiming the Tu-95 (or -16 for that matter) is a *mod* of
Oh, I see. Tu-95/20 is a direct descendent (cuz of the fuselage diameter)
and Tu-114 is not (cuz its fatter);)
> the B-29; I am claiming that they are *direct descendents* of the B-29 and
> the thinking that went behind it. That said, I think the Tu-95 is a
> first-rate aircraft that has more than amply stood the test of time.
No my friend, you wrote that in heart the Tu-95/20 is B-29. If diameter
of the fuselage (which I need to verify, BTW) is the measure of
*closeness*, you are in trouble. Once again, neither aerodymamics of the
wing nor powerplant and propellor had anything in common with B-29. Those
are exactly the parts which made Tu-95/20 so succesful. Let's see what's
left... Structural elements of the airframe (minus wings and tail surfases)?
MetaJohn
Clark/Steve Gallacci) writes:
>sweeping the wing and putting really big turbo-porps on it was
>the ultimate answer.
...snip...
Ho - well yes that's just what they did from the viewpoint of the design -
it wasn't that easy to do and make it work, though!
>On a more general note, engineers are a notoriously lazy bunch, and loath
>to give up on a basic design that works and would rather streach it to
>the limit than start over from scratch.
Whoa there pilgrim! It is Engineering Supervisors or Chief Project
Engineers, project accountants, and [before AutoCad] engineering draftsmen
who are "a notoriously lazy bunch" not the Design Bureau engineers.
When re-engineering [aka stretching the design] occurs you can bet
the Design Bureau is consulted last [more esp. if it was some other
company or nation's design]! The first ones in are the mission and weapon
planners who actually defined a new requirement [and then staffed it up
the chain to their BigBoss, who wants to piss on someone's turf because
he's topped out and won't get four stars ever], the bean counters and the
politico boys.
Once the designers actually get wind of it, the cost/benefit and
other covering documents are already signed-off to institute the deal that
was cut in the dinning room to "stretch" some existing design, reuse the
first mark of the production run for prototypes, and "build" it on the
cheap.
Designers and design engineers LOVE to make all-NEW stuff, and cut
shiny new metal for some pet theory [or spin fresh carbon/boron fibers
these days], but it takes twice as long, costs four times as much, and,
usually, only produces about a 10% edge over the "stretch" -- the fact
that even a 5% edge is THE EDGE [the one that lets you go home in the
passenger cabin not the cargo bay when its over] never fazes the
cost/benefit-efficiency/effectiveness counters.
Now a nice CLEAN SHEET of PAPER is every engineers dream/nightmare
because it puts his ass on the hairy edge and his mettle to the test -- if
he/she [no to be so overtly sexist] comes up short, well as King Lear told
his daughter Cordelia, "Nothing! Nothing will come of nothing [Ex nihilo
nihil fit]. Speak again." And so it goes.
("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
precious resources we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
Dan Ford
Six bombs. The moment under discussion was the Bikini tests in the summer
of 1946, for which Truman approved the use of "three nuclear bombs, half
of the country's stockpile" (quoting The Air Force Dictionary) altho in
the event only two were detonated.
Since I posted, I checked back and found that the U.S. stockpile in the
summer of 1948 was 13 bombs and 27 "Silver Plate" B-29s, with an estimate
of 5 days required for the 509th bomb group to leave it base, load bombs
at the AEC depot, and go to Europe.
- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dan...@cris.com
Brewster Buffalo Archives <http://concentric.net/~danford/buff.html>
On 22 Apr 1996, MetaJohn wrote:
> > . . . .We had I believe 6 bombs and 15
> >aircraft; the exact figures are in the current issue of Air & Space. . .
> .
Jim Herring
>
> The Tu-20/95's evolution from the B-29 seems to have been well
> doucumented over the years, but in basic, a straight wing, piston-driven
> airscrew big bomber could only go so far and so fast, yet the basic
> soundness of the structure was well-proven. Even putting bigger
> turbo-prop engines would only get so much more speed and range out of the
> the ultimate answer.
> The Tu-16 likely drew from the same engineering experiance base and the
> previously mentioned features in common between them is no suprise.
>
> to give up on a basic design that works and would rather streach it to
> the limit than start over from scratch.
As an engineer I can tell you that engineers are more than willing to
start over from scratch. What they hate is after designing to the
original specs (cost, mission, performance, etc.), some nontechincal type
coming along and saying "that's nice, now we want it to go farther,
faster, higher and cheaper, and you can only do it by modifying the
current design."
There are lots of aircraft and ships out there that are the result of
this kind of logic and they don't work.
MetaJohn
>Also, I though[t] "Silverplate" was the post war program to convert B-29s
>to atomic weapons carriers, not the atomic ops in the PTO?
>
Maybe there was a second or on-going SILVERPLATE op. I know that the TV
movie (yeah - not the trustiest source for anything but the producer's
notion of a good story and the Network's ideas about marketshare) made
several years ago had Lt.Col [at that time] Paul Tibbets using his "pull"
at least once to get something from a superior (hand selection of the
B-29s from the Grand Island or Omaha production plants IIRC) by invoking
the SILVERPLATE op name much to the AF Brigadier's chagrin [as played by .
. . ]. So you might say that the 509th bomb group got their a/c on
a SILVERPLATE. HoHo -- yes, but I'm not even the 50th to put it that way
since it happened, so don't blame for anything but repetition such
hackney.
David Lednicer
later Air International, wrote some excellent articles on the design
evolution that lead from the Tu-4 through the Tu-95. It was an
evolution - you cannot say that the Tu-95 grew directly out of the
Tu-4. There were a lot of intermediate steps. This discussion is
also repeated in Bill Gunston's two massive books on Soviet aircraft.
As Green, Swanborough and Gunston worked from original Soviet/Russian
sources and have excellent contacts there and in the Western
intelligence agencies, I would tend to believe them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
Brian Elliott
Tu-4s fitted with turbo-props & how many? and 2. How many of the AEW
dish ones were built?
brgds
Brian
Alexei Gretchikhine
> William Green and Gordon Swanborough, in Air Enthusiast and
> later Air International, wrote some excellent articles on the design
> evolution that lead from the Tu-4 through the Tu-95. It was an
> evolution - you cannot say that the Tu-95 grew directly out of the
> Tu-4. There were a lot of intermediate steps. This discussion is
> also repeated in Bill Gunston's two massive books on Soviet aircraft.
> As Green, Swanborough and Gunston worked from original Soviet/Russian
> sources and have excellent contacts there and in the Western
> intelligence agencies, I would tend to believe them.
There is no reason to doubt these sources. I know that B-29/Tu-4
experience was not wasted when Bear was born. I disagree with statements
which inflate the real role Superfotress played. It is _not_ a direct
discendant, neither it has a heart of B-29, nor it is plain similar in
powerplant and aerodymamics.
Mike Dembinski
Let's look at other areas of Soviet engineering with which I'm familiar:
Photographic equipment
Zorki = Leica II copy
FED = Leica II copy
Kiev 4 = Contax II copy
Kiev/Zenith 88 = Hasselblad 1000F copy
Kiev 16 = Minolta 16 copy
Let's follow, for example, the genealogy of today's Zenith. Trace it back
to the Zenith TTL, offspring of the Zenith EM, begat by the Zenith B, a
descendant of the Zenith 3M, a single-lens reflex version of the Zorki IV,
a direct descendant of the Zorki I, a direct copy of the Leica II.
Now, Soviet Cars...
ZIL 110 (as used by Stalin) = copy of 1940 Packard One-Ten
ZIL 111 (as used by Brezhniev) = copy of 1956 Packards
Moskvitch family = based on copy of post-war Opel Kadett
Zaporozhets = copy of NSU Prinz 4
Zhiguli/Lada = A Fiat 124 (not even a copy- the Sovs bought the factory
from Fiat)
Samara = Licence-built Talbot Alpine
One notable exception was the 1946 Pobieda and its antecedents, the M-21
and M-22 Volgas. The old M-20 Pobieda was a remarkably modern car for its
time (no separate fenders, for example).
Not entirely off topic; my point is that the Soviet system did not
encourage original thought among engineers. To paraphrase Big Blue's old
slogan 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' - 'No engineer ever got sent
to the Gulag for copying a successful Western product'.
Mike Dembinski
Jan Mattsson
>We had exactly THREE bombs, if you are talking about the Atomic inventory
>available for use in WWII. Bomb #1 was expended at Trinity test site 16
>July 1945 in the "let there be light" test. Bombs #2 and #3 went into
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the Japanese had not surrendered it would have
>been several months before Hanford produced enough Pu-239, or Oak Ridge
>enough U-235 to make another A-bomb!!
I seem to remember from Rhodes' book that there was
a fourth bomb completed, and scheduled for use
around August 15 or so, but after that one it
would have taken several months to complete the
fifth bomb. I may be mistaken though.
Jan Mattsson
Alexei Gretchikhine
> A couple of questions: 1. at which point were the (Chinese operated )
> Tu-4s fitted with turbo-props & how many? and 2. How many of the AEW
Hi Brian,
Tu-94 was a turboprop version of the Tu-4 (using either TV-2 or NK-4
engines). This was not accepted, but some 24+ were supplied to China.
These were later reengined with WJ-6 (AI-20).
Perhaps, original piston Tu-4 were reengined as well, but I would not
know at what date.
Regards,
Alexei Gretchikhine
> Just a word about Soviet back-engineering. The Tu-4 was but one example.
Marvelous list, Mike. I wondered myself about origins of some Soviet cars:)
Let's not forget that reverse-egineering is not purely Soviet phenomena.
China comes to mind right away and US was not as innocent at times. Hard
to find photo equipment and cars, but V-1 was there.
Note that the list is much shorter if licensed items are discarded. That
is not reverse-engineering by any means. As far as I know, the other half
of items from your list belong to yet another category: after war the
whole factories from Germany were moved to USSR (including optics and
Opel). So AZLK products are not reverse-engineered, at least not in
literal sence of this word. Same with optics/photo equipment.
Take care,
Alexei Gretchikhine
> encourage original thought among engineers. To paraphrase Big Blue's old
Let me wholeheartly desagree with you. Please do not mix the
discourage of the originality and the time and money saving
measures ranging from carbon copying of the aircraft/cars/photographic
equipment/nuclear weapons to industrial
spionage (which flourish in the West BTW). It was estimated that USSR
saved millions of rubbles and several years of R&D by using APG-65
blueprints
(or whatever they were) sold to Polish agents when working on Pazatron Zhuk.
Efficient? Yes. Not original? In a sence.
Copycats are out there. Even Sukhoi blames Mikoyan for copying the
"integral" design of MiG-29. It is not strickly Soviet phenomena and not
limited to international level.
Clifford R Krieger
Sorry for including the details above, but I don't want to be confused
with the B-29/Tu-95 (or is it F-17/F-18) discussion. When I was a
"college student" one of my history professors had been the Navigator
(Magellen in his words) on the B-29 crew designated for the Third Target.
Thus, since the early 1960s I have understood there there three bombs
available to the 509th in 1945.
As I recall there is a book out on this issue of the nuclear capability in
the 1940s, written by a History Instructor at the Air Force Academy (out
some 6 or 8 years), name LIKE Henry Brodski, but I expect I am wrong. I
had a copy and then it grew legs.
Regards -- Cliff
Lowell
LINDAD72
how difficult it would be to go to Russia and buy a Tu-4. I saw one at an
airfield display on "Weekday Wings". Maybe Daryl Greenamyer could get his
parts out of Greenland and put em on an "unliscensed" Baker Two Nine!
Greg Williams
Ken Duffey
I have followed this thread from the sidelines cos I don't want to
get into daft arguments about atom bombs, dumb Soviets, whether the
Bear is connected or whatever.... Why does it always descend into
a slanging match ??? - my plane is better than yours, neh !
I would just like to make a couple of points however :-
No matter what your political leanings, you have to admit that the
cloning of such a complex piece of aviation machinery was no mean
achievment on the part of the Soviet engineers. They were working
under the most adverse conditions just after the war, yet they managed
to strip the B-29 down, produce drawings, change the materials specs
where necessary, and tool up for production all within less than two years.
The resultant Tu-4 Bull was, according to Soviet figures, lighter than the
B-29 and it had a higher service ceiling at 36,745 ft. It was developed
into the Tu-80, which did not see operational service.
The Tu-95 can, I suppose claim a tenuous lineal descendancy from the B-29
in that it does have the same fuselage diameter. Having been close to one
at IAT Fairford, I can vouch that it is a huge machine - but all wing and
tail, with a disproportionate sized fuselage.
In the same way, the Aerospacelines Super Guppy can be linked to the B-29
via the C-97. This time though it is the wings that are the same. Thinks -
if you mated the Super Guppy wings to the Bear fuselage, would you end up
with a near-B-29 ???
Finally, the best example of two former adversaries sharing the Peace Dividend
that I have yet come across was at IAT Fairford two years ago.
A US B-52 and a Russian Tu-95 Bear were parked next to each other in the static
enclosure. Not only that, but when they came to depart, the Russian crew re-fuelled
the LOX tanks from the B-52's LOX cart - assisted by the B-52 crew. There is hope
for the world yet !!
The spooky thing was - the USAF hoses fitted the Tu-95 nozzles !!!!
Ken Duffey
Dan Ford
Silver plate was the word in use at the time of the Berlin Blockade
(1948), and I'm pretty sure I saw it in the cable traffic about the
Hiroshima bomb (1945) so it was probably a generic term about the
conversions necessary to hang an atomic bomb in a B-29. (Weight, I
suppose. The bombs were radically diffferent in shape.)
On the 50th annivrsary of Hiroshima, Tibbets spoke to the National Press
Club; I just happened to catch it on the radio. He was
magnificent--sounded like Slim Pickins. He told a yarn that was probably
the basis of the movie sequence, how he flew to Texas (I think it was) as
a lowly colonel to commandeer some stuff. An officous general tried to
chase him off the field, and Tibbets (you have got to imagine Slim
Pickens drawling this out) told the general to call Hap Arnold in
Washington, which he supposedly did, and came back pale & shaking &
officiously anxious to help.
- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dan...@cris.com
Brewster Buffalo Archives <http://concentric.net/~danford/buff.html>
CAGoudy
Soviet airmen were issued parachutes?!
MetaJohn
I know this subject has been *done* on the r.a.m. before and I know
that I am NOT supposed to ask , but why does a movement for expanded
rights/freedoms begin by limiting debate?
Nature, and evolution, care not one whit for our political desires and
accomodations. If any population is so foolish as to expend its wombs in
war, it will become extinct at some point. It is only in this era of vast
overpopulation that we hear of women demanding to be accepted into comabt
training and combat itself. In history there is the odd female warrior or
war leader, e.g. St Joan D'Arc, but it is remarkable because it is not the
norm. The Greek legend of the Amazonians was a horror to them, not a
desired state of affairs.
Any herd animal, and we are a (much modified) such, can bear
population fluxuations if adult females survive bad times better than
either males or juveniles [this makes females tough, but not necessarily
warriors]. Besides its quite narrow and ethnocentric [both PC no-nos] to
think that our current monogamy and parenting practices are somehow the
right ones because *we* use them. Human populations have employed many
more different sexual, partnering, and parenting schemes than most people
imagine. The old Hebrews and other semites, for instance, had sororate (a
younger sister replaces a barren or deceased mate) and levirate (a brother
marries a widow for the sake of this nephews and nieces) practices, not to
mention polygamy. Polyandry, while always rare, is practiced currently in
parts of the Himalayas where one man cannot support a wife and children
[now that sounds familiar]. Currently polygamy is in disrepute in the USA,
but it was the most common method of parenting for great leaders and/or
wealthy men throughtout settled human history. And it makes sense -- who
can better protect and offer advantage to his children -- as the wives
were looking for just such advanges for their offspring, the system was
mutually beneficial socially, as well as genetically.
I am not unequivocally opposed to admitting women into combat [but
don't take my wife!] -- I believe it is just one of the many emerging
strategies this planet may be testing on us to limit our numbers, which is
now out of control, and shows no signs of stabilizing. Think about it: the
current rates of increase cannot just continue; we are doing little on our
own to rectify the situation; ergo a solution, not any we might choose if
we were choosing mind you, will be presented to us. Extinction is always
possible in the end -- the vast majority (>99.9%) of animal species ever
are now gone. Getting young healthy women killed in combat may turn out to
be such a piece of the new stasis equation being worked out for us, or it
may be the first step towards extinction.
Women in Combat -- it is an EGO trip, afterall, like many of the
RadLib demands "How much can I get!" But (and why is no one asking?) is it
necessary or proper? Well, how good a mother can a trained killer be?
Maybe yes, maybe no. If the suspicion that many of the women looking for
combat roles are really lesbians is true, then the issue of motherhood may
be moot, if that turns out to be a Red-Herring, then the upcomming batch
of combat veteran mothers will be a new force in history.
Old Mexican Curse: "May your life be filled with lawyers!"
Walt Shiel
MetaJohn wrote:
>
> I know this subject has been *done* on the r.a.m. before and I know
> that I am NOT supposed to ask , but why does a movement for expanded
> rights/freedoms begin by limiting debate?
> Nature, and evolution, care not one whit for our political desires and
> accomodations. If any population is so foolish as to expend its wombs in
> war, it will become extinct at some point. It is only in this era of vast
> overpopulation that we hear of women demanding to be accepted into comabt
> training and combat itself. In history there is the odd female warrior or
> war leader, e.g. St Joan D'Arc, but it is remarkable because it is not the
> norm. The Greek legend of the Amazonians was a horror to them, not a
> desired state of affairs.
<snip>
Very well said. Points I bring up every time the un-PC topic is raised. I flew
with and trained female pilots in the USAF. They can do the job. I would never
suggest they can't. But I do not think they should be permitted to do it. It
violates what I consider to be a basic natural order of things (and one which you
covered very well in your posting).
I think a society that is willing to send it's young women into combat as active
combatants as a matter of policy is on the verge of moral bankruptcy.
> I am not unequivocally opposed to admitting women into combat
I, however, am. But it has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to fight.
In addition, I've seen and heard too many examples of situations wherein the males
did things (that were dangerous and/or stupid) they would not have done if females
were not involved. You can try, but you will never educate that certain
protectiveness out of us. I firmly believe it is genetically hard-coded.
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and Personal History
of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
For More Info, Email: wsh...@airmail.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TheWright1
In article <3183AF...@airmail.net>, Walt Shiel <wsh...@airmail.net>
writes:
>I think a society that is willing to send it's young women into combat as
>active
>combatants as a matter of policy is on the verge of moral bankruptcy.
>
>
I disagree. It may be a society in evolution.
Nature has an interesting talent for trying to control populations. Man,
with his intellect, has been able to overcome the vast majority of
nature's limiting techniques. Given the population explosion on this
planet, I do not find it hard to believe that women are in search for new
rolls because their role has, on a global basis, largely been fullfilled.
I tend to see their new roles as another of nature's attempts to control
an overextended population.
We human beings insist on attaching all sorts of ethereal motives and
ideals to actions that bounded in genetics. Nature isn't fair. It also
doesn't feel or give a damn about our high flouting intellectual attitudes
or our lofty mores. Nature just survives. The population bomb is the
single greatest crisis facing mankind. We are literally going to
REPRODUCE (how's that for being polite?) ourselves into oblivion. But
the earth will survive...we just may not be on it.
So don't see the changing roles of women as bankruptcy, see it for what it
is...the evolution of society and the roles we all play within.
<<You can try, but you will never educate that certain
protectiveness out of us. I firmly believe it is genetically
hard-coded.>>
That is a hard point to argue against. In fact, I tend to agree. Much
of our behaviour is determined largely by our genetic makeup. But
evolution is based on mutations of the genetic code. Being different is
not necessarily right or wrong...its just different. History, if there
will be any, will ultimately decide which interpretation is correct. All
we are doing is wasting energy worrying about things we really have no
control over.
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <4m0e8p$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1)
writes:
There are more practical reasons for restricting women in military
roles. That can be summerized by the word "Tailhook". I will be the
first to admit that women can successfully perform many warfighting
tasks in naval and air warfare. However, there is a particular kind of
interaction between men and woman which will ultimately break down unit
cohesion, discipline and moral.
Many of my aviator friends and collegues fault Paula Coughlin for her
behavior at Tailhook. From a legal standpoint they are fully justified
in their scorn. However, as I like to point out she was only trying to
be one of the guys. She had fully absorbed the milleu of naval
aviation and that is positive statement. However, a women can never be
a full equivalent of their male counterparts even though they can
technically match their skills. Men and women are complementary.
There is always going to be sexual tension between the two groups. On
cruise and deployment this is going to lead to real problems. It's
interesting that military men tend to look the other way at lesbians.
From my experience I believe that this has to do with the fact that men
do not see them as sexual players.
The ultimate reason why women should be restricted to non-combat roles
has to do with the fact that there will never be enough women who
either desire to be or are capable of being warriors. Unless women are
present in sufficent numbers to make them more commonplace these
tensions will never be overcome.
Women participating in ground combat is never going to work simply
because it requires the kind of strength and endurance that women
biologically don't have. Every country that has tried it has seen it
fail. Isreali women only engaged in direct combat in 1948 when there
was a shortage of men. They were withdrawn very quickly because of the
difficulties encountered. Even the Swedes who tried to do it in
peacetime saw the experiment fail
V/r Jerry Goldblatt
Paul Jonathan Adam
> I know this subject has been *done* on the r.a.m. before and I know
> that I am NOT supposed to ask , but why does a movement for expanded
> rights/freedoms begin by limiting debate?
> Nature, and evolution, care not one whit for our political desires and
> accomodations. If any population is so foolish as to expend its wombs in
> war, it will become extinct at some point.
Okay, I may be rising to the troll...
What percentage of the US or Britain is under arms at the moment?
How long does it take to train an infantryman to be more than a useless
mouth, let alone a fighter pilot?
The era of warfare consuming enormous masses of the population on the
FEBA is gone. The threat to the mass of your people is nuclear, and that
slaughters without regard to gender: otherwise, in conventional war,
the losses *now* are small compared to population.
> is only in this era of vast
> overpopulation that we hear of women demanding to be accepted into comabt
> training and combat itself. In history there is the odd female warrior or
> war leader, e.g. St Joan D'Arc, but it is remarkable because it is not the
> norm. The Greek legend of the Amazonians was a horror to them, not a
> desired state of affairs.
And this in an era when the countryside would be stripped of men of combat
age, rather than Desert Storm being the night's entertainment for the mass
of the nation.
> I am not unequivocally opposed to admitting women into combat [but
> don't take my wife!]
Take those best able to fight and win. Once, we and the US excluded from
combat on the basis of colour. Now, gender. I take no definite stand,
except that I wear a uniform myself (well, part-time) and want the Army
I serve in to be the *best*. If that means admitting women, great. If it
means excluding women, okay. The test is effectiveness, nothing else.
> Women in Combat -- it is an EGO trip, afterall, like many of the
> RadLib demands "How much can I get!" But (and why is no one asking?) is it
> necessary or proper? Well, how good a mother can a trained killer be?
How good a father can a trained killer be? How well can you function in a
lawful, peaceful society when you have been taught to resolve dispute and
conflict with massive deadly force?
The answer is, well enough.
> Maybe yes, maybe no. If the suspicion that many of the women looking for
> combat roles are really lesbians is true, then the issue of motherhood may
> be moot, if that turns out to be a Red-Herring, then the upcomming batch
> of combat veteran mothers will be a new force in history.
Oh, bullshit, from someone in an "integrated" (about 5% and rising slowly)
unit. Those women aren't lesbians, or at least they (a) refrain from
hitting on the few other female soldiers where we see them and (b) bring
boyfriends to unit socials, or are, ah, "receptive to advances" from male
unit members in some cases.
If someone produces proof that bringing women into combat units improves
efficiency, I'll become the most fervent "enlist anything female" advocate
you'll ever find. Produce proof that the reverse is true and I'll
personally kick every female in the company out the gate. Until then,
we have a major personnel shortage and slapping an automatic rejection
on 51% of the population is not the way to resolve it. The women I've
served with have (after the weeding-out process that gets rid of lots
of men too) been disciplined, capable individuals with a major commitment
to the military.
Finally, my company commander happens to be a woman. So I'm not saying anything
that might jeopardise my career :) But she runs a *good* unit. Not QED,
but indicative.
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude
towards him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem.
For better or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." R. A. Lafferty
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Will Lawrence
slash hack chop slice
: Very well said. Points I bring up every time the un-PC topic is raised. I flew
: with and trained female pilots in the USAF. They can do the job. I would never
: suggest they can't. But I do not think they should be permitted to do it. It
: violates what I consider to be a basic natural order of things (and one which you
: covered very well in your posting).
: I think a society that is willing to send it's young women into combat as active
: combatants as a matter of policy is on the verge of moral bankruptcy.
: > I am not unequivocally opposed to admitting women into combat
: I, however, am. But it has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to fight.
: In addition, I've seen and heard too many examples of situations wherein the males
: did things (that were dangerous and/or stupid) they would not have done if females
: were not involved. You can try, but you will never educate that certain
: protectiveness out of us. I firmly believe it is genetically hard-coded.
I have a few questions...
1) Who set out you "natural order"??
2) Why are wombs more precious than testicles? You run out of either, you're
doomed. And for the record...wombs are more common. Of course, testicles can
be used repeatedly in a limited timeframe, but if you run low on them, you
start to get evolutional dead ends. So, both are important, and therefore,
we should never risk EITHER young men or young women by sending them to
die without a REALLY good reason. Preventing genocide qualifies. Cheap oil
does not. But I digress...
3) We won't even get INTO the other crap you spouted about protecting
women cause they're weak. Or that you misspelled Jeanne d'Arc's name.
How about the situations where we men screwed up? Like...oh...not seeing
Pearl Harbour coming...or building an atomic bomb...or letting a madman
run amok in Europe until it was in ruins...or losing an entire GENERATION
in a war that had no reason....need I go on?
You have a right to say all this stuff. And I have a right to call it what
it is...garbage. There are no facts to support your arguments, and no logic
to them.
--
=============================================================
| W. Lawrence | __________________________ |
| aka Darcangel | \ ________ // \ ________ / |
|========================| \ ______ // \ ______ / |
| ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca | \ ____ // \ ____ / |
| HALifax, N.S. | \____//_____ \____/ |
|========================| |
| "Can't this car go any | |
| faster/Cause I can | ---- |
| still see where I am" | |
| - Dada | \__/ |
=============================================================
MetaJohn
In article <830737...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, Paul Jonathan Adam
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Maybe yes, maybe no. If the suspicion that many of the women looking
for
>> combat roles are really lesbians is true, then the issue of motherhood
may
>> be moot, if that turns out to be a Red-Herring, then the upcomming
batch
>> of combat veteran mothers will be a new force in history.
>
>Oh, bullshit, from someone in an "integrated" (about 5% and rising
slowly)
>unit. Those women aren't lesbians, or at least they (a) refrain from
>hitting on the few other female soldiers where we see them and (b) bring
>boyfriends to unit socials, or are, ah, "receptive to advances" from male
>unit members in some cases.
>
Hey Paul, read the POST: "if it turns out to be a Red-Herring. . ."
And there is every reason to believe that many are not Lesbians,
especially now after 10 years of tyring to attract high-quality women
candidates to military officer and enlisted skills. But that isn't the
crux of it. See Jerrold Goldblatt's POST in this thread, and my response,
for more thoughts here.
Glad you got in here though. I'm getting better responses than I
first imagined. Lots of thinking people out there in r.a.m. cyberspace.
MetaJohn
In article <4m191j$d...@apollo.isisnet.com>, ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Will
Lawrence) writes:
>2) Why are wombs more precious than testicles? You run out of either,
you're
>doomed
Think about it. How many men does it take to father 100 babies - one. How
many women does it take to bear 100 babies - nearly one hundred!
>. . . protecting women cause they're weak.
I never said that. Read MY post. Besides "warrior" and "strong" are not
identical concepts - women are tough, in endurance they are tougher than
men - still doesn't make them warriors.
> Or that you misspelled Jeanne d'Arc's name.
Sorry about that.
>How about the situations where we men screwed up? Like...oh...not seeing
>Pearl Harbour coming...or building an atomic bomb...or letting a madman
>run amok in Europe until it was in ruins...or losing an entire GENERATION
>in a war that had no reason....need I go on?
I never said they shouldn't vote, hold office, built war materiel, have
and announce their opinions, etc. etc. -- just said "not in combat"!! OK.
Hard enough to defend what I did say. Take the emotional visor off and
READ what I wrote.
But thanks for a mild workout.
MetaJohn
In article <4m0p41$n...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
aup...@ix.netcom.com(Jerrold Goldblatt) writes:
>Many of my aviator friends and collegues fault Paula Coughlin for her
>behavior at Tailhook. [snip]
And beforehand as well. My neighbors in Iroquis Pt. Naval Housing had
already heard of her BEFORE tailhook. She had a rep for sleeping with all
the Sierra Hotel jocks she could get interested (Reverse Conquests?). One
neighbor, who I will never name -- so don't ask, knew that she was up to
no good as Adm Arthurs aide from the get-go. She had a vicious habit of
redefining his orders, misrepresenting his private conversations, and
generally acting like he was her elevator ride! They had all already
learned to steer clear of her.
>[snip] Men and women are complementary.
>There is always going to be sexual tension between the two groups. On
>cruise and deployment this is going to lead to real problems. . . .
Why isn't this just a plain fact for any one to see? An old F-4
squadron CO told me back in 1984 that his feamle troops were great
performers, took their careers seriously , etc. and he liked them, BUT
they never had small problems, it was always "I'm pregnant", or "I was
raped", or "I'm being harrassed". His young males were juvenille
delinquents at times but they could be more easily guided back on the path
or eventually dismissed from service; the females were great until they
weren't, then they were a never-ending can of worms.
>. . . It's
>interesting that military men tend to look the other way at lesbians.
>From my experience I believe that this has to do with the fact that men
>do not see them as sexual players.
Uh - roger that. And women are always surprised that men are almost
instantly sensitive to this. When I tell my wife that so-and-so is either
a les or going that way, she is indignant and wants to know how I can
possibly tell -- but I can, and more often than not I'm right!
>[snip]
>The ultimate reason why women should be restricted to non-combat roles
>has to do with the fact that there will never be enough women who
>either desire to be or are capable of being warriors. [snip]
And that is what we see -- a few very vocal and aggressive
can-do-ers, who are top 1%-ers physically and mentally who want the world
for an oyster. the vast majority root them on for the vicarious thrill or
whatever,a nd it makes smoke and noise but little flame. Better to stick
to waht works and take the flak for it than to vote with our dicks and get
killed for it somewhere.
My opinions only. GOOD response - just what I was hoping for.
Walt Shiel
MetaJohn wrote:
>
> In article <4m191j$d...@apollo.isisnet.com>, ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca (Will
> Lawrence) writes:
>
> >. . . protecting women cause they're weak.
>
> I never said that. Read MY post. Besides "warrior" and "strong" are not
> identical concepts - women are tough, in endurance they are tougher than
> men - still doesn't make them warriors.
>
Nor did I. I merely stated the obvious -- most (not all, of course) young men will be
more inclined to protect a woman than a man...and to take unreasonably chances to do so.
> >How about the situations where we men screwed up? Like...oh...not seeing
> >Pearl Harbour coming...or building an atomic bomb...or letting a madman
> >run amok in Europe until it was in ruins...or losing an entire GENERATION
> >in a war that had no reason....need I go on?
>
> I never said they shouldn't vote, hold office, built war materiel, have
> and announce their opinions, etc. etc. -- just said "not in combat"!! OK.
>
No doing anything about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor is not the same thing as not
seeing it coming. And the hell does that have to do with sexual differences, anyway?
Which war had no reason? All wars have reasons, all wars have causative events, but not
all wars are "just wars." I'm not sure which specific war you were referring to, but I'd
have to guess Vietnam, a war which in fact was a "just war" -- poorly executed to the
point of criminality, but nonetheless "just." The Gulf War was excellently executed but
probably not a true "just war." But what does any of that have to do with the issue of
women in combat?
--
==>For All E-Mail Replies, Use "wsh...@airmail.net"
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
[For More Info, E-Mail: wsh...@airmail.net]
=============================================================
Walt Shiel
TheWright1 wrote:
>
> That is a hard point to argue against. In fact, I tend to agree. Much
> of our behaviour is determined largely by our genetic makeup. But
> evolution is based on mutations of the genetic code. Being different is
> not necessarily right or wrong...its just different. History, if there
> will be any, will ultimately decide which interpretation is correct. All
> we are doing is wasting energy worrying about things we really have no
> control over.
You can rationalize it any way you want...but we will simply have to agree to disagree on
this one. It has zilch to do with genetics and everything to do with the current
dismantling of family values.
Ben
Assuming (foolishly?) this isn't a troll
meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) wrote:
> I know this subject has been *done* on the r.a.m. before and I know
>that I am NOT supposed to ask , but why does a movement for expanded
>rights/freedoms begin by limiting debate?
A good point
> Nature, and evolution, care not one whit for our political desires and
>accomodations. If any population is so foolish as to expend its wombs in
>war, it will become extinct at some point. It is only in this era of vast
>overpopulation that we hear of women demanding to be accepted into comabt
>training and combat itself. In history there is the odd female warrior or
>war leader, e.g. St Joan D'Arc, but it is remarkable because it is not the
>norm. The Greek legend of the Amazonians was a horror to them, not a
>desired state of affairs.
From a strictly evolutionnary stand-point you are quite correct .
However, I think you err with the 'era of overpopulation' bit. After
all, it's in the Western Indudustrialised Democracies that the
political pressures to accept women in combat are the greatest and
it's certainly not where one looks to find overpopulation pressures.
.
> Any herd animal, and we are a (much modified) such, can bear
Too many of us forget that
>population fluxuations if adult females survive bad times better than
>either males or juveniles [this makes females tough, but not necessarily
>warriors]. Besides its quite narrow and ethnocentric [both PC no-nos] to
>think that our current monogamy and parenting practices are somehow the
>right ones because *we* use them. Human populations have employed many
>more different sexual, partnering, and parenting schemes than most people
>imagine. The old Hebrews and other semites, for instance, had sororate (a
>younger sister replaces a barren or deceased mate) and levirate (a brother
>marries a widow for the sake of this nephews and nieces) practices, not to
>mention polygamy. Polyandry, while always rare, is practiced currently in
>parts of the Himalayas where one man cannot support a wife and children
>[now that sounds familiar]. Currently polygamy is in disrepute in the USA,
>but it was the most common method of parenting for great leaders and/or
>wealthy men throughtout settled human history. And it makes sense -- who
>can better protect and offer advantage to his children -- as the wives
>were looking for just such advanges for their offspring, the system was
>mutually beneficial socially, as well as genetically.
Interresting in and of itself, but somewhat superfluous and irrelevant
to the topic at hand, IMHO.
> I am not unequivocally opposed to admitting women into combat [but
>don't take my wife!] -- I believe it is just one of the many emerging
>strategies this planet may be testing on us to limit our numbers, which is
>now out of control, and shows no signs of stabilizing. Think about it: the
>current rates of increase cannot just continue; we are doing little on our
>own to rectify the situation; ergo a solution, not any we might choose if
>we were choosing mind you, will be presented to us. Extinction is always
>possible in the end -- the vast majority (>99.9%) of animal species ever
>are now gone. Getting young healthy women killed in combat may turn out to
>be such a piece of the new stasis equation being worked out for us, or it
>may be the first step towards extinction.
I bring up again the point about the W.I.D. You would probably be
right if not for the fact that it's the Third World(Two-Thirds World?)
that generates the overpopulation pressures. Then, by your own
arguments, it's the western cultures that face extinction, not the
entire human race.
Now to that last (ick) paragraph. Barring my own arguments, you did
raise some valid points; so why did you go and shoot yourself in the
foot by writing the following?
> Women in Combat -- it is an EGO trip, afterall, like many of the
And the great industrial barons (mostly male) aren't on an ego trip?
And politicians (up to now mostly male) aren't on an ego trip?
And soldiers in elite units (mostly male) aren't on an ego trip?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not shooting ego trips down; it's just that
in our societies where individual rights and freedom are so highly
praised what is good for the Gander is good for the Goose.
>RadLib demands "How much can I get!" But (and why is no one asking?) is it
>necessary or proper? Well, how good a mother can a trained killer be?
And your point is? Isn't the a mother protecting her young the
fiercest fighter nature produces (a caracteristic of all mammalians
[i.e. higher life forms] if i"m not mistaken).
>Maybe yes, maybe no. If the suspicion that many of the women looking for
>combat roles are really lesbians is true, then the issue of motherhood may
This sounds so prejudiced that it can rob you of much credibility
amongst reasonnable individuals
>be moot, if that turns out to be a Red-Herring, then the upcomming batch
>of combat veteran mothers will be a new force in history.
In closing, all I can say is that you may be right about 'expanding
wombs in war' being the road to extinction. Then so be it. The wombs
aren't yours to risk (or not). Should there be restrictions on whom
has a right to defend the rights of the individual?
After all, one should live or die by ones own moral values. It is
what separates us from the other animals.
No flames, just opinions.
Ben e-mail: sue.bi...@sympatico.ca
My friends call me Dictator of the Universe....I think
they're mocking me.
TheWright1
In article <3184F4...@lfwc.lockheed.com>, Walt Shiel
<wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
>TheWright1 wrote:
>>
>> That is a hard point to argue against. In fact, I tend to agree.
Much
>> of our behaviour is determined largely by our genetic makeup. But
>> evolution is based on mutations of the genetic code. Being different
is
>> not necessarily right or wrong...its just different. History, if there
>> will be any, will ultimately decide which interpretation is correct.
All
>> we are doing is wasting energy worrying about things we really have no
>> control over.
>
>You can rationalize it any way you want...but we will simply have to
agree to
>disagree on
>this one. It has zilch to do with genetics and everything to do with the
>current
>dismantling of family values.
I think you will find that the collapse of family values is often rooted
in the overpopulation question. There are too many people and too few
resources to support them. And you can define resources in a multitude
of ways, from cash in hand to drinkable water to a "nice" place to live.
When the stresses of trying to obtain "my share' becomes too great or too
oppressive, they are oftened vented in ways that are considered immoral or
wrong. In a twisted way, family values have led us to this point because
the traditional world view on families has been "bigger is better." In a
finite world, that just isn't true.
MetaJohn
In article <3184F5...@lfwc.lockheed.com>, Walt Shiel
<wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
>But what does any of that have to do with the issue of
>women in combat?
>
>
Beats me? do you know?
("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
precious we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
MetaJohn
In article <3184F4...@lfwc.lockheed.com>, Walt Shiel
<wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
>You can rationalize it any way you want...but we will simply have to
agree to
>disagree on
>this one. It has zilch to do with genetics and everything to do with the
>current
>dismantling of family values.
>
>
OK -- go on and finish your thought. You have thought about this and you
have made observations and surmises. Something not entirely obvious to
everyone is happening, but most of us are either missing the point or
using "emotional blinders" to look with, so get us straight, at least from
your POV. This is a discussion -- not a diktat announcement. No one will
win by fiat, no one will fail by trying out their reasons.
Dig in. In all sincerety -- MetaJohn.
MetaJohn
In article <4m2t2t$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, thewr...@aol.com
(TheWright1) writes:
> In a twisted way, family values have led us to this point because
>the traditional world view on families has been "bigger is better." In a
>finite world, that just isn't true.
Hey it is getting through! It's a Malthusian conundrum. And a genetic
contradition. And a spiritual problem. As well as a social and personal
problem.
Big forces are at work here. We, in our divided compartments, still
have no agreed upon consensus for defining, let alone dealing with the
problems! And now the "you be damned, I want my rights" movement is
further fracturing us when we should be drawing our strength from (not
using it against) one another. How many marriages do you see fail after
hitting the first big rock? How many couples, of whatever genders, do you
see working for any team concept, and how many are patroling an uneasy
border/gender war? Why is every husband on a TV sitcom a baffoon, who
couldn't get any respect if he bought and paid for it?
Will Lawrence
: Think about it. How many men does it take to father 100 babies - one. How
: many women does it take to bear 100 babies - nearly one hundred!
Great...read MY post, too. You use the same set to father too many babies,
you start to get inbreeding. Take a biology course. Sure, wombs are more
precious, but that's no excuse foir women not being in combat. Besides,
I said later that I was using this to get across that wasting either in
combat is a waste, even if the cause is just. The point was, you're going
to throw away young people that you need in society regardless.
: >. . . protecting women cause they're weak.
: I never said that. Read MY post. Besides "warrior" and "strong" are not
: identical concepts - women are tough, in endurance they are tougher than
: men - still doesn't make them warriors.
My bad. But what keeps them from being warriors? I've known a couple of
women in the militia in this country, and they were, if anything, superior
soldiers to the men in their units, by and large. Why? Because they were
concerned about doing their JOB. Not about killing people or playing with
weapons. Like it or not, the latter is the motivation behind far too many
people getting into combat arms, and people like that cause trouble.
Maybe the fact that they may have children at home will help them be good
warriors - more motivation. At least, as much as a father has.
: I never said they shouldn't vote, hold office, built war materiel, have
: and announce their opinions, etc. etc. -- just said "not in combat"!! OK.
Yes, but you and the original instigator hinted that women were unstable and
prone to bad judgement under stress. News flash: stress causes all kinds
of people to do stupid things. Like killing an entire SVN village...
: Hard enough to defend what I did say. Take the emotional visor off and
: READ what I wrote.
: But thanks for a mild workout.
Mild? We've only begun, mon ami.
And as I said, I do not question your right to spout this garbage, but
I will challenge its veracity.
TheWright1
In article <4m2icc$j...@news1.sympatico.ca>, sue.bi...@sympatico.ca
(Ben) writes:
> After
>all, it's in the Western Indudustrialised Democracies that the
>political pressures to accept women in combat are the greatest and
>it's certainly not where one looks to find overpopulation pressures.
>I bring up again the point about the W.I.D. You would probably be
>right if not for the fact that it's the Third World(Two-Thirds World?)
>that generates the overpopulation pressures. Then, by your own
>arguments, it's the western cultures that face extinction, not the
>entire human race.
I beg to differ with you. It is a common misconception that only the
Third World faces overpopulation. The problem is global and it applies as
much here, if not more so, than anywhere. I say that because even though
we represent a smaller percentage of the global population, we consume the
VAST majority of the earth's resources. Overpopulation is defined as a
population that has outstripped its ability to feed and care for itself.
We in the First World are just more efficient in acquiring and squandering
resources. If the rest of the world consumed on a level that we do, the
whole system would have already collasped.
Brian Varine
On 29 Apr 1996, MetaJohn wrote:
> In article <4m0p41$n...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> aup...@ix.netcom.com(Jerrold Goldblatt) writes:
>
> >Many of my aviator friends and collegues fault Paula Coughlin for her
> >behavior at Tailhook. [snip]
> And beforehand as well. My neighbors in Iroquis Pt. Naval Housing had
> already heard of her BEFORE tailhook. She had a rep for sleeping with all
> the Sierra Hotel jocks she could get interested (Reverse Conquests?).
Even if Paula Coughlin hadn't been at Tailhook and hadn't made a
complaint we'd still see a "Tailhook". She wasn't the only female who
complained and was assaulted. I could personally care less if
she slept around or was a saint and we know that the males certainly
slept around, oh, but that's OK right? What happend to her was wrong folks,
plain and simple. Would any of us like it if it happened to our wifes or
girlfriends? Let's not also forget that if the Navy leadership would have
actually done something *other* than CYA, it wouldn't have lasted a month.
Heck, if they would have pushed an investigation, we may have found out
that Coughlin's behavior *was* unacceptable (Along with a slew of others).
But they didn't and now we've had to live with the 3+ year Tailhook
debacle. I for one am disgusted with how the upper echelon dealt with
this, it certainly isn't the type of leadership the troops expect. The
thing that really pisses me off is when people try to blame people like
Coughlin for Tailhook. The fault lies squarely with the Naval Leadership
(or lack of). As bad as Tailhook was it seems that the latest episode
at the Naval Academy hasn't taught anyone anything. Someday the Navy will
pull it's head out of it's ass.
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu>
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb
Oregon Freqs/Military.jpgs/Russian ECM list/car ECM eval
He who owns the electromagnetic spectrum, owns the battlefield!
When in doubt, JAM IT!!!!
STOP HIGHWAY ROBBERY------JOIN THE NMA!
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBtAzDwm6oAAAEDAOjurmD0Ft9VXTvnVVOf5uOLbsSB4PuidmW+aDjV7F7+KRSb
fakuNHXVEhBYwTINVVnIjiSik12UcCv8UZXj/x9hAXBJXCk+v/8y9w6zk1Gu1iXC
/HYnR/zJIyVohkIJwQAFEbQmQnJpYW4gUi4gVmFyaW5lIDx2YXJpbmViQHVjcy5v
cnN0LmVkdT4=
=NYjj
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Simon Lam
: 2) Why are wombs more precious than testicles? You run out of either, you're
: doomed. And for the record...wombs are more common. Of course, testicles can
: be used repeatedly in a limited timeframe, but if you run low on them, you
: start to get evolutional dead ends. So, both are important, and therefore,
: we should never risk EITHER young men or young women by sending them to
: die without a REALLY good reason. Preventing genocide qualifies. Cheap oil
: does not. But I digress...
Think. If a woman pilot gets pregnant and doesn't know it then goes up and
pulls 9 g's. The kid comes out dead or deformed. Who's responsible?
Chem/Bio weapons are used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Nukes are
used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Who pays? The kid pays.
: 3) We won't even get INTO the other crap you spouted about protecting
: women cause they're weak. Or that you misspelled Jeanne d'Arc's name.
: How about the situations where we men screwed up? Like...oh...not seeing
: Pearl Harbour coming...or building an atomic bomb...or letting a madman
: run amok in Europe until it was in ruins...or losing an entire GENERATION
: in a war that had no reason....need I go on?
Building the atomic bomb was NOT a screw up. It kept the peace by MAD for
nearly half a decade.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
scha...@notis.com
In article <4m3c6n$5...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
<aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> writes:
Snipped
> Think. If a woman pilot gets pregnant and doesn't know it then goes up and
> pulls 9 g's. The kid comes out dead or deformed. Who's responsible?
> Chem/Bio weapons are used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Nukes are
> used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Who pays? The kid pays.
>
snipped
> --
> Simon Lam
> It's the man, not the machine.
>
> E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>
You're still discriminating against a group based solely on sex. If 9 Gs is
proven detrimental to fetuses then there are precautions that can be taken by
women who wish to pull 9 Gs and have proven they can perform the tasks that get
them in a 9 G environment. There are chemical risks in every day life too. Are
you proposing that all women capable of child bearing be locked up in a
perfectly safe environment?
There are risks everywhere, but experience has shown that blanket
generalizations of one sex's primacy on a particular set of tasks is not
absolute. If a female can do the job, meet the same standards in equally
applied tests as men, why not let her do the job? Certainly medical
technologies are available to warn when a woman may not be in condition (or
prevent her from getting that way) to fly just as they are available to warn
when a male pilot suddenly gets high blood pressure or other flight restricting
ailments.
Your argument "the kid pays" assumes women have no control over their bodies
and therefore should have no control over their lives. Who's next then? Female
police officers, or female biochemist (lots of risk chemicals)? We ought to be
arguing about the standards set for say navy fighter pilots, are the standards
reasonable, do they accurately reflect the demands of the position, are they
applied equally to all applicants? Is follow up conducted in a reasonable and
accurate manner to ensure that medical, mental or techonolgical factors have
not reduced the subject's ability to perform?
Ben Schapiro
scha...@notis.com
Suzanne Archibald
Simon Lam wrote:
>
> Think. If a woman pilot gets pregnant and doesn't know it then goes up and
> pulls 9 g's. The kid comes out dead or deformed. Who's responsible?
> Chem/Bio weapons are used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Nukes are
> used. Kid comes out dead or deformed. Who pays? The kid pays.
>
Most of this can be equally applied to sperm and it being used afterwards, so
I'm afraid that you have a bad example.
Suzanne
Paul Jonathan Adam
In article <4m1rga$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> meta...@aol.com "MetaJohn" writes:
> Hey Paul, read the POST: "if it turns out to be a Red-Herring. . ."
> And there is every reason to believe that many are not Lesbians,
> especially now after 10 years of tyring to attract high-quality women
> candidates to military officer and enlisted skills. But that isn't the
> crux of it. See Jerrold Goldblatt's POST in this thread, and my response,
> for more thoughts here.
Yes, I did. I found the original a little inflammatory :) But well-
written and deserving a decent reply.
> Glad you got in here though. I'm getting better responses than I
> first imagined. Lots of thinking people out there in r.a.m. cyberspace.
"I disagree with your beliefs and will fight to protect your right
to express them." Can't remember who said that one. Debate is a good
thing as long as you stay coherent and don't descent into invective. The
first person to do so loses ;)
MetaJohn
In article <318551E9...@catapult.com>, Suzanne Archibald
<suz...@catapult.com> writes:
>Most of this can be equally applied to sperm and it being used
afterwards, so
>I'm afraid that you have a bad example.
>
>Suzanne
Really? Bent sperm? after the high 'g' rides. Hell one doctor put mine in
a centrifuge before he put it into my wife!! On Purpose! -- get your
facts in line. Try again.