Lets talk NAPALM
WX...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
What type of case was used? They look like giant cigars or old external
fuel tanks without fins. Why did they not have fins? They always seemed
to be droped by low altitude delivery.
Why was it a preferred weapon in Vietnam.
Thanks,
Bill
banjo
My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
Jim
Ed Rasimus
>I have some questions regarding Napalm that can be answered by this group.
>
>What type of case was used? They look like giant cigars or old external
>fuel tanks without fins. Why did they not have fins? They always seemed
>to be droped by low altitude delivery.
>
Korean war vintage napalm was actually mixed locally and poured into
old drop tanks. Vietnam era napalm (incenda-gel) was factory mixed and
loaded into tanks specifically designed for the purpose. The canisters
were nose and tail fused with a white phosphorus "grenade" type fuse
which after the tank ruptured on impact would ignite the napalm.
Most napalm was produced finless and delivered at low altitude to
allow for maximum spread of the contents. Finned napalm (BLU-27B) was
occasionally used in North Vietnam missions--fins allowed for high
angle delivery in a non-permissive environment, but that was at the
expense of dispersal of the gel on impact. Low altitude "lay-down"
delivery was the preferred option.
>Why was it a preferred weapon in Vietnam.
Napalm was classified as "ANTI-PAM", meaning anti-personnel and
material. It was not suitable for hardened targets such as buildings,
bridges, airfields, etc. It possesses some degree of "terror"
capability. For some unexplained reason folks have a greater fear of
being burned to death than being blown up. The fallacy of the argument
against napalm can be seen if you consider being inside a simple frame
building. If napalm its 25 feet outside the door, you hear a "whooosh"
and a momentary flash of heat. If a MK-82 lands 25 feet outside the
door, you, the wall and the door are all history. Which weapon was
"inhumane"?
It was not a particularly "preferred" weapon in SEA, since it wasn't
as effective as GP bombs. It is somewhat spectacular when dropped in
bunches with a good smear, but it isn't particulary sound tactically.
Anthony Volk
Don't forget that a very important power of napalm is to burn the
available oxygen. There are many cases of people surving the fires (not
even being burned!) while asphinxiating due to a lack of oxygen. This is
how you got someone deep in a hole. It worked quite well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony " No longer "Anybody seen the keg?" " Volk "I am soooo smart,
Carleton University and soooo strong,
Email address: av...@chat.carleton.ca and soooo great"
Tony Volk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Swartz
>
>Stephen Swartz wrote:
>>
>> In article <310EFA...@bga.com>, banjo <mus...@bga.com> says:
**** SNIP ****
>>
>> >My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>> >Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>> >
>>
>> I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
>
>To the best of my knowledge, Napalm was not utilized in the Gulf (why would it
>be? Not only does it make bad PR, but it seems CBU's would be more effective in
>that environment, anyway). Am I mistaken?
>
Probably not. Just going by track record and straight probabilities, I'm
probably the one who's wrong!
It was my understanding that the army's anti-trench personnel shoot-torch-
bulldoze operation used a napalm derivative for the "torch" phase of the
cycle. I remember at the time I read this thinking that it must have been
a pretty thin brew of napalm to effectively cover the distances involved.
However, to be fair, in addressing the original racist-baiting comment
about napalm and asians, I think our equal opportunity use of burning
the enemy alive is demonstrated in either case!
***********************************************************************
* =8^) - Unionism->Collectivism->Socialism->Tyranny->Death *
* Steve - "All that is required for evil to triumph is for *
* Swartz good men to do nothing." *
* - "Satan has walked the earth in the form of a man; *
* NRA Life and his name was Robin Hood." *
* AFA Life - "Who is John Galt?" *
***********************************************************************
Damien Burke
|> WX...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
|> >
|> > I have some questions regarding Napalm that can be answered by this group.
|> >
|> > What type of case was used? They look like giant cigars or old external
|> > fuel tanks without fins. Why did they not have fins? They always seemed
|> > to be droped by low altitude delivery.
|> >
|> >
|> > Bill
|>
|> My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
|> Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
Iraqis Asian? And yes, it was used during the Gulf war. I remember a USMC
Harrier pilot being interviewed on the BBC during the war; there were two
silvery pods with flat ends that he was asked about. He ummed and ahhed a bit
before the interviewer said something like 'Are they napalm?' and the pilot
responded with something like 'Uh - yes. I'd forgotten for a moment'. He
looked *very* edgy about it. Since then, I've seen other confirmation - CH4
in the UK had a program called 'Riding the Storm' where US Gov. officials
admitted napalm had been used on Iraqi trenches that still contained Iraqi
troops - 'Better them than our boys' being the general reasoning.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My world wide web home: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
[ Sinclair Spectrum page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/speccy ]
[ European military aircraft page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/hangar ]
Michael Toler
: >My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
Napalm was not used against Iraq. Deemed "inhumane" by the military.
(inhumane = unneccessary :)
--
Michael "Ouch" Toler | Don Gaspard Du Lac
Dallas, Texas | Barrony of the Steppes, Ansteorra
Check out my new Web page (CK) at:
http://connect.net/ouch/ouch.shtml
Eric Gross
>To the best of my knowledge, Napalm was not utilized in the Gulf (why would it
>be? Not only does it make bad PR, but it seems CBU's would be more effective in
>that environment, anyway). Am I mistaken?
Napalm was not used against troops, but some was used to ignite a few of the
fire-trenches in the Saddam Line.
Andrew McNeil
Greenmyers ill fated attempt to fly the Kee Bird
B-29 out of Greenland.
The radial engine footage was REALLY COOL . . .
Oh but the ending was sadder than old yeller.
This is a real tear jerker for war bird fans . .
It was NOVA, on PBS, title "B-29 Frozen in Time".
You can order copies from pbs if so inclined.
Later,
Andrew
Stephen Swartz
>
>WX...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:
>>
>> I have some questions regarding Napalm that can be answered by this group.
>>
>> What type of case was used? They look like giant cigars or old external
>> fuel tanks without fins. Why did they not have fins? They always seemed
>> to be droped by low altitude delivery.
>>
>> Why was it a preferred weapon in Vietnam.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>
>Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>
I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
Ed Rasimus
>
>My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>
Are we seeking to insert a bit of "politically correct" racist
propaganda about the choice of weapons against particular ethnic
cohorts. Cut the crap. Napalm is no different than any other
anti-personnel weapon. CBU, rockets, flechettes, gravel, incendiary
bombs, MK-36 destructors, and plain ol' HE can do just as much damage.
As for your implication, check the fighter loads in the ETO. You will
find P-38, P-47 and P-51s all carrying napalm at various times during
WWII. It was truly "jellied gas" in those days, mixed from available
fuel and poured into drop tanks.
Stephen M. Ryan
: Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
Napalm was used extensively in Europe in WWII. It is usually described as
"incendiaries" or "firebombs;" it is nevertheless napalm. Dresden is one
example of napalm being used against urban areas. Other German cities
were firebombed as well, as were most Japanese cities.
Steve Ryan
Chris Douglas
> >>
> >> I have some questions regarding Napalm that can be answered by this group.
> >>
> >> What type of case was used? They look like giant cigars or old external
> >> fuel tanks without fins. Why did they not have fins? They always seemed
> >> to be droped by low altitude delivery.
> >>
> >> Why was it a preferred weapon in Vietnam.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bill
> >
> >Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
> >
>
To the best of my knowledge, Napalm was not utilized in the Gulf (why would it
be? Not only does it make bad PR, but it seems CBU's would be more effective in
that environment, anyway). Am I mistaken?
--
-----------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Merriman
told me that on occasion during straffing attacks they would drop their
wing tanks so that subsequent straffing runs would ignite them. I dont
know if this tactic was developed at Group level or higher up but my Dad
claims that it was the inspiration for the development of napalm.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
> Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
Yes, it was, as were phosphorous bombs of various persuasions. The US
doesn't single out Asians for special treatment, it's equally beastly
to everyone :)
--
"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
Stephen Swartz
>
>Stephen Swartz (swar...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
>: >My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>
>: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
>
>Napalm was not used against Iraq. Deemed "inhumane" by the military.
>(inhumane = unneccessary :)
>
And riding a bulldozer with a flamethrower mounted on it astride trenches
full of troops (igniting them then burying them alive/dying) was
perfectly humane?
Hey, look, I'm not questioning the practice. I'm just doubting the
"humane" argument.
Maybe we are confusing air dropped napalm with napalm in general?
Paul Tomblin
>In article <310EFA...@bga.com>, banjo <mus...@bga.com> says:
>: My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>: Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>
>Napalm was used extensively in Europe in WWII. It is usually described as
>"incendiaries" or "firebombs;" it is nevertheless napalm. Dresden is one
>example of napalm being used against urban areas. Other German cities
>were firebombed as well, as were most Japanese cities.
Not all incediaries are napalm. Napalm is (I think) a brand name for a
specific type of gellied petroleum made by DuPont designed to stick to soft
targets (ie people, buildings and vehicles) as it burns.
I'm willing to bet that most incediaries used in WWII were wiley pete (White
Phosphorous) or similar chemicals.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@xcski.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
Henry Hillbrath
>In article <4eo8qo$o...@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca>, mto...@bnr.ca (Michael Toler) says:
>>
>>Stephen Swartz (swar...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
>>: >My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>>: >Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>>: >
>>
>>: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
I am not sure what it has to do with sociology.
But, *geographically* Iraq is in Asia, as is Israel, Turkey, etc.
That may not make much sense, but, that is the way the Greeks named them.
To them, everything east across the water was Asia, and everything south
was Africa, and the bit they were on was Europe. They didn't realize that
they were all connected (aside from the odd river or two.)
Harold Hutchison
> doesn't single out Asians for special treatment, it's equally beastly
> to everyone :)
upset us that much. Guess we still will need to reevealuate that part
of it. :)
Seriously, if you ever wanted to see a theater of war where
beastly would have complimented the actions and attitudes of BOTH
sides, I will submit the Pacific Theater of WWII. Both the U.S. and
Japan fought each other ferociously, and there was no quarter given or
expected by either side. Europe was civilized compared to the
Pacific. Both sides probably amassed lengthy lists of violations of
the Geneva Conventions. The US won, of course, and our dirty deeds
were not publicized, but they happened. Besides the famous instance
of the WAHOO machine0gunning lifeboats, George Bush was alleged to
have strafed lifeboats as well when he flew TBFs.
The Pacific was ungentlemanly and definintely damned un-English
in its conduct. (pun intended)
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Ron Miller
: Last night I saw an excellent documentary about
: Later,
: Andrew
I asked my wife to stay out of the room for about 15 minutes after it
ended. I prefer to cry alone.
I kept on hoping that it was a *different* Kee Bird than we'd been
reading about here......
Sure was a heroic try though.
Ron Miller
banjo
>
> In article <310F9E...@origin.ea.com>, Chris Douglas <cdou...@origin.ea.com> says:
> >
> >Stephen Swartz wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> >My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
> >> >Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
> >
> >be? Not only does it make bad PR, but it seems CBU's would be more effective in
> >that environment, anyway). Am I mistaken?
> >
>
> However, to be fair, in addressing the original racist-baiting comment
> about napalm and asians, I think our equal opportunity use of burning
> the enemy alive is demonstrated in either case!
> *
No offense, but, I was not racist-baiting. Recently I realized that due
to where the US fought, that it seemed that the only targets were napalm
was used was against people who were Asian. I do not believe that there
were any racist reasons for this. It's just that's where the wars were
fought.
Jim
banjo
>
> |> My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
> |> Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>
> Iraqis Asian? And yes, it was used during the Gulf war. I remember a USMC
> Harrier pilot being interviewed on the BBC during the war; there were two
> silvery pods with flat ends that he was asked about. He ummed and ahhed a bit
> before the interviewer said something like 'Are they napalm?' and the pilot
> responded with something like 'Uh - yes. I'd forgotten for a moment'. He
> looked *very* edgy about it. Since then, I've seen other confirmation - CH4
> in the UK had a program called 'Riding the Storm' where US Gov. officials
> admitted napalm had been used on Iraqi trenches that still contained Iraqi
> troops - 'Better them than our boys' being the general reasoning.
>
Iraqis count as Asians.
It just seems to me a quirk that the US has only used napalm against
Asians.
Jim
banjo
> : Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>
> "incendiaries" or "firebombs;" it is nevertheless napalm. Dresden is one
> example of napalm being used against urban areas. Other German cities
> were firebombed as well, as were most Japanese cities.
>
This is not napalm. These bombs used phosphrus. It burns on exposure to
air. It burns hot enough to melt iron. (ie. machinery). Napalm requires
something to light it. It will not melt machinery. They have different
uses.
The first was used against industrial targets. The second against people.
Jim
Eric Jimerson
>The radial engine footage was REALLY COOL . . .
>Oh but the ending was sadder than old yeller.
>This is a real tear jerker for war bird fans . .
>
>It was NOVA, on PBS, title "B-29 Frozen in Time".
>You can order copies from pbs if so inclined.
>
>Later,
>
>Andrew
I saw it too. It was very interesting, and the ending was very,
very sad. I was actually less saddened by the one fella not making it
than by the B29 burning up. All that time and effort and $$ down the
tubes- not to mention a priceless piece of history.
JagdPanther
Lou Haas
How much money did they piss away in addition to putting this
poor mechanic into is coffin?
Viper
> Korean war vintage napalm was actually mixed locally and poured into
> old drop tanks.
What exactly components were "poured" into old drop tanks? And what planes
delivered Napalm in korea?
> Vietnam era napalm (incenda-gel) was factory mixed and
> loaded into tanks specifically designed for the purpose.
Were there any changes in the "mixture" ? If yes what?
> The canisters were nose and tail fused with a white phosphorus
> "grenade" type fuse which after the tank ruptured on impact would
> ignite the napalm.
According to the footage I've seen, the canisters were turning and
revolving wildly while falling... Was it on purpose? (Well, if there
were no fins, I guess so, but why?)
> Most napalm was produced finless and delivered at low altitude to
> allow for maximum spread of the contents.
Speaking of spreading... Were there canisters of various types? What area
did they "cover" (say in the open field, forest, and city/village)
> Finned napalm (BLU-27B) was
> occasionally used in North Vietnam missions--fins allowed for high
> angle delivery in a non-permissive environment, but that was at the
> expense of dispersal of the gel on impact.
Delivered by what? ( type of the plane)
> If napalm its 25 feet outside the door, you hear a "whooosh"
> and a momentary flash of heat. If a MK-82 lands 25 feet outside the
> door, you, the wall and the door are all history. Which weapon was
> "inhumane"?
That's called "psychology"...
> It was not a particularly "preferred" weapon in SEA, since it wasn't
> as effective as GP bombs. It is somewhat spectacular when dropped in
> bunches with a good smear, but it isn't particulary sound tactically.
"Boy, do I love that smell of fresh napalm in the early morning!"
(From "Apocalipse now")
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| | ...Never take half-measures! ...Only unlimited, |
| -=# Viper #=- | overwhelming, preventive strikes... |
| | Viper. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
WX...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
compound. I think the primary ingredient is mangenese or magnesium. May be
on the the chemists out in the group can let us know.
In either case Napalm is clearly not the same thing as an incendiary bomb.
Bill
steve hix
:In article <310EFA...@bga.com> mus...@bga.com "banjo" writes:
:> My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
:
:Yes, it was, as were phosphorous bombs of various persuasions. The US
:doesn't single out Asians for special treatment, it's equally beastly
:to everyone :)
Good thing the Brits never used incendiaries on civilian targets, huh? \8-}
Cogan
funding and we would have 2 flying B-29s. Look at the success of the group
that recovered the P-38. They asked for public donations and made a careful
well organized recovery effort. Greenmeyer's effort was done on a shoestring
and was very poorly planned. Notice they didn't even have an air compressor.
The Kee Bird is now just a memory not a flying museum
Bruce Cogan
[+=] Dionysios Pilarinos
: Don't forget that a very important power of napalm is to burn the
: available oxygen. There are many cases of people surving the fires (not
: even being burned!) while asphinxiating due to a lack of oxygen. This is
: how you got someone deep in a hole. It worked quite well.
Do you also have info on Fuel-Air explosives? When were they developed,
and what makes them so powerful (when compared to napalm)?
Also, how much technology is involved in the creation of these weapons?
Interested in a figure (or list) of possible countries that have such a
weapon.
Thanks, and of course, this question is open to anyone.
: Tony " No longer "Anybody seen the keg?" " Volk "I am soooo smart,
: Carleton University and soooo strong,
: Email address: av...@chat.carleton.ca and soooo great"
: Tony Volk
--
.-------[+=]----------[ Dionysios Pilarinos ]----------[+=]-------.
| 'Halls of justice painted green, money talking...' - Metallica! |
` [ dpil...@unix.gsusa.org ] [ IRoC @ IRC ] '
Bill Huber
>Iraqis count as Asians.
But they're not Orientals. Iraqis are Asian only because Iraq is
part of the Asian continent. They are Caucasian.
Bill Huber
Paul Tomblin
>expected by either side. Europe was civilized compared to the
>Pacific. Both sides probably amassed lengthy lists of violations of
>the Geneva Conventions. The US won, of course, and our dirty deeds
Japan wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention, therefore they had no
obligation to treat enemy combatants according to it, or TO EXPECT SIMILAR
TREATMENT FROM THE ENEMY. If you don't want to be machine gunning in your
life boats, then don't fight for a country that doesn't sign conventions
designed to prevent that sort of behaviour.
The only "stick" that a Geneva signatory can use on other Geneva signatories
is a threat that if they don't obey the accords, then their POWs will not be
treated according to the accords either.
It ain't much, but this is what separates men from animals.
Rich Sullivan
>ended. I prefer to cry alone.
>
>I kept on hoping that it was a *different* Kee Bird than we'd been
>reading about here......
>
>Sure was a heroic try though.
>
>Ron Miller
The story of the Kee Bird was written up about 6 or 8 months ago in
The Atlantic Flyer monthly news paper. It was sad then. Even worse on
tv. It was like watching a mystery movie for the first time but knowing
'who done it' all along. I think the most exciting part was on the first
start-up of the first engine. It would catch, then it wouldn't, then it
would. My face was hurting because of the smile when it was finally up
to speed.
It's on again tonight at 7:30pm and 9:00pm on Boston area PBS stations.
rs
Thomas Maier
Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in and
completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and put it back
together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
Or am I just overlooking the *Bravado Factor*?
Tom, Uni of Akron, BSEE 1970. Any Zips out there?
Stephen M. Ryan
: This is not napalm. These bombs used phosphrus. It burns on exposure to
: air. It burns hot enough to melt iron. (ie. machinery). Napalm requires
: something to light it. It will not melt machinery. They have different
: uses.
: The first was used against industrial targets. The second against people.
US bombers carried a mix of M69 500lb incendiaries (phosphorous) and M47
napalm bombs. In the Pacific Theater, B-29s could carry 180 M47s each,
usually loaded for "pathfinder" missions. M47s were used in Europe and
Japan in WWII. Napalm is also excellent for burning wooden buildings
(Tokyo and Dresden) and could serve to deprive the enemy of its industrial
workforce (so the theory went).
Steve Ryan
Ed Rasimus
>On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Korean war vintage napalm was actually mixed locally and poured into
>> old drop tanks.
>What exactly components were "poured" into old drop tanks? And what planes
>delivered Napalm in korea?
Sounds like you've got a neighbor you want to "talk" to. Methinks you
want to much detail. In the Korean war the components were generally
jet fuel (JP-4) and gelatin, but gasoline, kerosene, diesel or fuel
oil all could work. Ground attack by the AF in Korea was done by
B-26s, F-80s, F-84s and some P-51s.
>
>> Vietnam era napalm (incenda-gel) was factory mixed and
>> loaded into tanks specifically designed for the purpose.
>Were there any changes in the "mixture" ? If yes what?
It came from the factory. You'll have to ask a duPont chemist.
>
>> The canisters were nose and tail fused with a white phosphorus
>> "grenade" type fuse which after the tank ruptured on impact would
>> ignite the napalm.
>According to the footage I've seen, the canisters were turning and
>revolving wildly while falling... Was it on purpose? (Well, if there
>were no fins, I guess so, but why?)
The idea was for low angle delivery, striking the ground without
penetration and getting the largest surface smear.
>
>> Most napalm was produced finless and delivered at low altitude to
>> allow for maximum spread of the contents.
>Speaking of spreading... Were there canisters of various types? What area
>did they "cover" (say in the open field, forest, and city/village)
>
Coverage depends upon the surface, the delivery speed, the dive
angle--lots of factors. Jungle trees would restrict dispersal
considerably. Almost all Vietnam delivery was BLU-1B, which was about
a 750 pound item.
>> Finned napalm (BLU-27B) was
>> occasionally used in North Vietnam missions--fins allowed for high
>> angle delivery in a non-permissive environment, but that was at the
>> expense of dispersal of the gel on impact.
>Delivered by what? ( type of the plane)
F-105D
>
>"Boy, do I love that smell of fresh napalm in the early morning!"
>(From "Apocalipse now")
The quote is: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!... It smells
like...VICTORY!"
Paul Tomblin
>
>Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in and
>completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and put it back
>together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
Yup - it would have cost a tiny bit more, but we wouldn't have lost a
priceless piece of history. Whats-his-face who's responsible for this cock-up
committed a crime against history in the name of saving a few bucks. I didn't
cry, I was outraged.
Charlie
>Greenmyers ill fated attempt to fly the Kee Bird
>B-29 out of Greenland.
>The radial engine footage was REALLY COOL . . .
>Oh but the ending was sadder than old yeller.
>This is a real tear jerker for war bird fans . .
>It was NOVA, on PBS, title "B-29 Frozen in Time".
>You can order copies from pbs if so inclined.
>Later,
>Andrew
I was also sad after watching this, but I have a few questions if anyone
knows???
When did this attempt take place???
Did they bother to salvage anything before it sank???? (engine, etc)
Charlie (ccc...@tiac.net)
Ed Rasimus
>In <310f83d6...@news.rmii.com> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
>Cut the crap yourself, Ed. Mayhaps you're still feeling a little
>guilty for crisping non-combatant children in a "war" in which you
>were clearly on the wrong side, morally. I guess when you were pickling
>off all those stores, day in and day out, twenty-odd years ago you
>didn't think you spend the rest of your life watching footage of
>children fire-flayed by your collective hand. Can't say as I feel
>for you.
War is hell according to Sherman. Personally, I find aerial combat the
highest challenge a man can aspire to.
Regardless of what Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark and Joan Baez told you,
the air campaign against North Vietnam was extremely disciplined and
restrictive.
Call me callous if you will, but I've never had a twitch of regret for
anything I've done in an airplane. The non-combatant "children"
manning the SAM sites and AAA died doing what they chose to do.
Dcmvs
rid of the stuff since the end of the Vietnam war. From the pictures I've
seen, many of the thousands the canisters are in pretty sad shape and
leaking. The Navy wants to get rid of them and has found a facility to
dispose of them but the State of California won't let them do it because
it would require the Nape to be removed from the canisters thus polluting
the air. The State is also worried that the tank cars or trucks derail or
get into an traffic accident and the raw Nape will be ignited. So all in
all its still a problem some 20+ years later.
I found out that Stryene(sp), the stuff used to make plasticand foam cups,
is the bonding agent that was mixed in with gasoline.
Timothy Fricker
TF
Mary Shafer
Ed> Viper <vi...@zoot.tau.ac.il> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Korean war vintage napalm was actually mixed locally and poured
>> into
>> old drop tanks.
>What exactly components were "poured" into old drop tanks? And what planes
>delivered Napalm in korea?
Ed> Sounds like you've got a neighbor you want to "talk" to. Methinks
Ed> you want to much detail. In the Korean war the components were
Ed> generally jet fuel (JP-4) and gelatin, but gasoline, kerosene,
Ed> diesel or fuel oil all could work.
The original oil was palm oil, hence the name. Cheap, abundent in the
Western Pacific area, easily handled. Or so they said during the
Vietnam War protests, when the Dow recruiters at UCLA were hidden in
Boelter Hall because nobody could find anything in Boelter unless
they'd been there for about a year.
Ed> The quote is: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!... It
Ed> smells like...VICTORY!"
"We are the Valkyries,
We pick up dead guys.
Oh, there's some now.
I'll take the redhead,
Oh, he's not dead yet,
Plop!"
(Well, it's better than Hoi-te-oh-whatever, which are the real words
to the beginning, but that's Wagner for you.)
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Simon Lam
: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
We used Napalm in Iraq? What good is Napalm on sand?
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Wild Bill Cannastra
>banjo <mus...@bga.com> wrote:
>>
>>My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>>Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>>
>Are we seeking to insert a bit of "politically correct" racist
>propaganda about the choice of weapons against particular ethnic
>cohorts. Cut the crap. Napalm is no different than any other
>anti-personnel weapon. CBU, rockets, flechettes, gravel, incendiary
>bombs, MK-36 destructors, and plain ol' HE can do just as much damage.
Cut the crap yourself, Ed. Mayhaps you're still feeling a little
guilty for crisping non-combatant children in a "war" in which you
were clearly on the wrong side, morally. I guess when you were pickling
off all those stores, day in and day out, twenty-odd years ago you
didn't think you spend the rest of your life watching footage of
children fire-flayed by your collective hand. Can't say as I feel
for you.
Incendiary munitions--napalm, WP, or good ol' flamethrowers--can
only kill or wound by immolation, and in rare cases by
asphyxiation. Degree and severity of wounds inflicted is only part
of a munition's effect; the nature of the wound and the rate at
which it is effected can be the more salient factor, especially
with incindiaries. Burning to death over the course of a couple of
minutes, every nerve ending in your flesh screaming with agony, is
nothing like being killed immediately by the blast effect of a Snakeye or
105 shell. And living encased in keloid tissue is nothing like
getting by minus a leg.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Cut the crap yourself, Ed. Mayhaps you're still feeling a little
> guilty for crisping non-combatant children in a "war" in which you
> were clearly on the wrong side, morally. I guess when you were pickling
> off all those stores, day in and day out, twenty-odd years ago you
> didn't think you spend the rest of your life watching footage of
> children fire-flayed by your collective hand. Can't say as I feel
> for you.
Mr Cannastra, please moderate your tone.
> Incendiary munitions--napalm, WP, or good ol' flamethrowers--can
> only kill or wound by immolation, and in rare cases by
> asphyxiation. Degree and severity of wounds inflicted is only part
> of a munition's effect; the nature of the wound and the rate at
> which it is effected can be the more salient factor, especially
> with incindiaries. Burning to death over the course of a couple of
> minutes, every nerve ending in your flesh screaming with agony, is
> nothing like being killed immediately by the blast effect of a Snakeye or
> 105 shell. And living encased in keloid tissue is nothing like
> getting by minus a leg.
And this is somehow worse than the traumatic damage inflicted by close-
range 7.62mm rifle fire? Good old L2 fragmentation grenades? Bayonets?
A sharpened shovel in the side of the head? Infantry CQB is a hellish
business. All war is a hellish business: it involves killing other
human beings because their clothes are the wrong colour.
"Killed instantly" by a Snakeye? How about having your toenails pared
back to mid-shin by an LC mine? One foot vapourised, the other
mangled so badly amputation is the only recourse? (after several weeks
of infection culminating in gangrene and septicaemia, though...) I
knew a gentleman who experienced that fate, and he wasn't particularly
happy about it. Neat? Instant? Not really.
There is no 'nice' way to make war except to stay home and not fight at all.
Oh, and check your medical information. Third degree burns are almost
painless. Nerve endings can't 'scream in pain' after they've been destroyed,
and pain receptors are very near the surface and so the first to go.
--
"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
Paul Jonathan Adam
> What exactly components were "poured" into old drop tanks? And what planes
> delivered Napalm in korea?
Napalm derives from naptha and palmitate. Thickening agents for the fuel
can be palm oil, detergents, and various rubbers and polymers. Most
ground-attack aircraft seemed to deliver napalm in Korea: F-84s and
P-51s are the ones I've seen pictures of, but I'd guess virtually every
type dropped some.
> According to the footage I've seen, the canisters were turning and
> revolving wildly while falling... Was it on purpose? (Well, if there
> were no fins, I guess so, but why?)
Fins add weight and drag to the aircraft, and there's no real need
for them AFAIK. As long as the canister goes to where you aimed it
with adequate precision...
Bill Garnett
> Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in
> and completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and put
> it back together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
>
than what they tried to do.
Bill Garnett (Air Race Fanatic)
bew...@chevron.com
P-51, Cadillac of the sky!
Lee Green MD MPH
Cannastra) wrote:
> Cut the crap yourself, Ed. Mayhaps you're still feeling a little
...
> Incendiary munitions--napalm, WP, or good ol' flamethrowers--can
> only kill or wound by immolation, and in rare cases by
> asphyxiation. Degree and severity of wounds inflicted is only part
> of a munition's effect; the nature of the wound and the rate at
> which it is effected can be the more salient factor, especially
> with incindiaries. Burning to death over the course of a couple of
> minutes, every nerve ending in your flesh screaming with agony, is
> nothing like being killed immediately by the blast effect of a Snakeye or
> 105 shell. And living encased in keloid tissue is nothing like
> getting by minus a leg.
As regular denizens of r.a.m. know, two things are against my policy here:
saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
policy has exceptions...
I'm not defending any means of dismembering, disfiguring, or killing human
beings. But I would point out two things. First, the notion that
blast/frag weapons kill quickly, or just take off a limb, or don't cause
severe burn wounds, is incorrect. They're just as inhumane as
incendiaries, as far as I can tell. Napalm has a terror effect, promoted
by press reports of the Vietnam era, but objectively HE is just as nasty.
Second, the notion of burning to death over a protracted period in
full-body-surface agony is a powerful emotional image, not well supported
by fact. Immolation produces very rapid loss of blood pressure,
unconsciousness, and death in a short time. (Burning at the stake was
torment because it was done slowly.) Third degree burns are typically not
painful at the time, either, as only the cutaneous (skin) nerves respond
to heat and full-thickness (third-degree) burns kill the nerves. Severe
second-degree burns such as likely to be suffered by someone hit with a
small splash of napalm are the severely painful ones, the ones likely to
be survived, and likely to produce keloids. But HE produces plenty of
those too, and adds ruptured viscera, brain damage, fractures, and other
unpleasant features.
I guess the bottom line is that I think arguing over whether incinerating
people or dismembering them is "more inhumane" is silly.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
gre...@umich.edu your personal physician. These posts are my
KF8MO personal doings, not a service of nor the
responsibility of the University of Michigan.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
jenn...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com
: Anyone out there have the ordering info for this video?
I wrote the number down on a magazine I had on my coffee table. I'll
bring it in Monday.
Bill w...@vnet.ibm.com
93 Passat GLX
94 CBR600F2 - Hondaminium DoD#940
93 DR350S - MudPuppy :g/cage/s// /g
CC#004 - Squid Wannabes, Ride Fast, Ride Squidly!
..................KILL THE COW..................
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
quoting Timothy Fricker <fric...@andrew.cmu.edu> :
| Anyone out there have the ordering info for this video?
there is a video store at www.pbs.org (but when I just looked for the
info for the B-29 program, I couldn't find it. Could be that it shows
up there shortly, or that asking by email would get your the info).
in any case, if you can't find the answer (or video), let me know and
I'll review what it says in the copy I taped...
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-> Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it became OFFICIAL US policy <--
-> will a 14-year sentence for a Wei Jingsheng change anything ?!? hah! <--
---> ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <---
Karon
paragraph. I can think of no humane way to take another's life. It does
not matter whether thermite, WP, napalm, HE, or a flame thrower and
bulldozer is used.
Thermite is an excellent weapon to use against manufacturing areas because
it cannot be easily extinguished. WP and napalm are excellent
antipersonnel weapons. WP can be extinguished by covering it and shutting
off the oxygen supply so the surgeon gets flamed later. A flame thrower
and bulldozer works for me.
I do not like the above weapons, or mines, cluster bombs, etc., but the
idea in war is to outlive your enemy. There is one rule - kill him before
he kills you. There is no humanity in that. Never was. Never will.
The very thought that a weapon can be considered to be 'humane' is
frighting to me, because those who believe such nonsense are those most
likely to use it.
The very concept is inane.
Karon
------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell All Reality is Virtual
I am me and only me
Whatever that may be.
Wayne Johnson
>Cut the crap yourself, Ed. Mayhaps you're still feeling a little
>guilty for crisping non-combatant children in a "war" in which you
>were clearly on the wrong side, morally. I guess when you were pickling
>off all those stores, day in and day out, twenty-odd years ago you
>didn't think you spend the rest of your life watching footage of
>children fire-flayed by your collective hand. Can't say as I feel
>for you.
>Incendiary munitions--napalm, WP, or good ol' flamethrowers--can
>only kill or wound by immolation, and in rare cases by
>asphyxiation. Degree and severity of wounds inflicted is only part
>of a munition's effect; the nature of the wound and the rate at
>which it is effected can be the more salient factor, especially
>with incindiaries. Burning to death over the course of a couple of
>minutes, every nerve ending in your flesh screaming with agony, is
>nothing like being killed immediately by the blast effect of a Snakeye or
>105 shell. And living encased in keloid tissue is nothing like
>getting by minus a leg.
And infections from jungle rot that last twenty years are nothing to
ignore. Nor are the paralyzed, the blind, the deaf, the mad.
I wonder what moral high ground you were standing on during the war?
Claymore, bayonet, pungi, garrote, shotgun, willie pete grenade,
machete, mortar, flamethrower or blessed M-16. I can carry them on my
back or in my hands, and deal the same death that can be delivered
from a chopper, a Thud, or a Buff.
Death is death, and when the killing is over only a fool gloats for
any reason.
You're gloating.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Harold Hutchison
>
> We used Napalm in Iraq? What good is Napalm on sand?
infantry positions, cities, aircraft, bunkers, Scud sites, CW plants,
BW plants, the list goes on... :)
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Harold Hutchison
> saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
> policy has exceptions...
Bone, with the ECM FIXED and with the upgrades to allow it to use
JDAM and cluster munitions and a crew that knows its shit, and let you
fly in it, and you'll be a believer.
#21 Racing 2 Win
>The story of the Kee Bird was written up about 6 or 8 months ago in
>The Atlantic Flyer monthly news paper. It was sad then. Even worse on
>tv. It was like watching a mystery movie for the first time but knowing
>'who done it' all along. I think the most exciting part was on the first
>start-up of the first engine. It would catch, then it wouldn't, then it
>would. My face was hurting because of the smile when it was finally up
>to speed.
>It's on again tonight at 7:30pm and 9:00pm on Boston area PBS stations.
Did the article mention when the Kee Bird crashed and what it's final
mission was?
Harold Hutchison
Paul. Mea culpa!
----------
>>> > As regular denizens of r.a.m. know, two things are against my policy here:
>>> > saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
>>> > policy has exceptions...
>>> Lee, I will soon get you to revamp that policy. Give me a
>>> Bone, with the ECM FIXED and with the upgrades to allow it to use
>>> JDAM and cluster munitions and a crew that knows its shit, and let you
>>> fly in it, and you'll be a believer.
>>
>> Okay, Harold, but *you* put up the money for all that :)
> Well, Lee, they ain't my Bones, they belong to the Air Force,
> so I don't need to pay for them, but I did more reading. As it turns
> out, the pilots/crews of the Bone have been finding things out about
> the Bone that DON'T often work their way up to the generals that
> testify before Congress, nor to the Senators.
> You know those Common Strategic Rotary Launchers that they
> would use on nuclear alert? As it turns out, they can carry a wide
> variety of CONVENTIONAL weapons, too. Take your pick, AGM-142 HAVE
> NAP, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-86C ALCM, Mk 84 Snakeyes,
> BLU-109s, BLU-96s, AGM-130s and GBU-15s. The radar on the Bone can be
> used to make the B-1 a mini-JSTARS, as well as being able to place a
> 500lb bomb BETWEEN the legs of a high-tension power line tower. When
> they needed GPS quick and the procurement took too long, they were
> able to buy the Scout-M with Flightmate Pro as a "SAR aid", and use your
> average run-of-the-mill laptops to aid in the mission planning. The
> ECM systems that are faulty still have enoguh capability to serve as
> "bring along Ravens" for the 366th Wing, which grabbed a half-dozen
> Bones for Mountain Home due to the better speed, maneuverability, and
> payload, as well as an upgrade that will give it JDAM and the
> capability to drop the newest CBUs. Did I mention that its jammer is
> also quite powerful?
> I'll say this much, Lee. You pessimism regarding the B-1 has
> its uses. We'll probably have some bad guy lulled to sleep should we
> ever have to deploy the 366th (and I do pray we don't). When the
> things actually pay him a visit, he's gonna wonder what the **** hit
> him.
> Did I mention that the bone can also carry the BLU-113, aka
> Deep Throat?
> That Bone is one heckuva plane. I sure wish I could ride one
> for a mission. If that ever happened, I'd just be happier than a
> clam and could die, cause I already have seen heaven.
John Kelly
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
> The original oil was palm oil, hence the name.
Quoting "Wings" 2 nights ago:
"Jellied naptha, and palm oil" .. Napalm
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jk...@ragtime.com | ... heard a singer on the radio, late | Protect
SysOp, Ragtime East | last night; said he's gonna kick the | the
Net-Viking ]:| | darkness, 'till it bleeds daylight ... | Net!
Rupert Williams
says:
>
>Good thing the Brits never used incendiaries on civilian targets, huh? \8-}
Surely you aren't trying to suggest that the Brits were the only ones to
use incendiaries are you?! I must be misunderstanding your logic somewhere.
Errmm, incendiaries were not used by the Brits ( or anyone else for that
matter ) to directly kill people. Yeah, I know they could, but that was
certainly never the intention of the weapon. Get out the old encyclopaedia
and look under "i" for a description of what incendiaries are used for.
Rups
Paul Jonathan Adam
<Dr Lee Green said:>
> > As regular denizens of r.a.m. know, two things are against my policy here:
> > saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
> > policy has exceptions...
> Lee, I will soon get you to revamp that policy. Give me a
> Bone, with the ECM FIXED and with the upgrades to allow it to use
> JDAM and cluster munitions and a crew that knows its shit, and let you
> fly in it, and you'll be a believer.
Okay, Harold, but *you* put up the money for all that :)
--
Harold Hutchison
>> > saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
>> > policy has exceptions...
>> Lee, I will soon get you to revamp that policy. Give me a
>> Bone, with the ECM FIXED and with the upgrades to allow it to use
>> JDAM and cluster munitions and a crew that knows its shit, and let you
>> fly in it, and you'll be a believer.
>
> Okay, Harold, but *you* put up the money for all that :)
Stephen M. Ryan
Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
: You know those Common Strategic Rotary Launchers that they
: would use on nuclear alert? As it turns out, they can carry a wide
: variety of CONVENTIONAL weapons, too. Take your pick, AGM-142 HAVE
: NAP, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-86C ALCM, Mk 84 Snakeyes,
: BLU-109s, BLU-96s, AGM-130s and GBU-15s. The radar on the Bone can be
1) No way will an AGM-142 HAVE NAP fit into a CSRL. I'd be surprised if
you could get it into the bomb bay.
2) If you plan to drop Mk 84s about 3 miles apart or keep crossing the
target as you pickle them off one at a time, then you might use a CSRL. I
submit that this would not be the best use of this weapon. The same goes
for any other munition you plan on carrying in the CSRL that is best used
in groups of more than 1.
3) Your going to have to have someone buddy lase for those GBUs, and the
Bone dropping them off one at a time won't be any better than an F-111 or
F-15E that will be along to lase for it. I assume there won't be many
grunts around to lase for you on the ground.
: ECM systems that are faulty still have enoguh capability to serve as
: "bring along Ravens" for the 366th Wing, which grabbed a half-dozen
: Bones for Mountain Home due to the better speed, maneuverability, and
: payload, as well as an upgrade that will give it JDAM and the
: capability to drop the newest CBUs. Did I mention that its jammer is
: also quite powerful?
Right. The 366th was not happy to lose their AGM-142 capability, and
would've preferred to wait on the B-1s until their capabilities were
improved. This was a moot point, however, because the 34th Bomb
Squadron's B-52Gs were retired suddenly in 1994 due to a Congressional
budget deal designed to save the F-111s two more years. The 366th didn't
"grab" 6 B-1s, they were stuck with them and are making do--they have to
put the best face on it they can. BTW, the Bones can't operate out of
Mt. Home any more than the B-52s can. The Bones are staying at Ellsworth
because the airfield won't get the funds to be upgraded to handle them.
The B-52s had to taxi on the runway and turn around on the hammerhead
because the taxiways were too narrow at the end and couldn't support the
weight. I sure the Bone will have the same problem.
I think the ECM assertions you make have been adequately disputed on
other threads. I am astounded someone would say the B-1 anything
similar to a Raven in capability.
Steve Ryan
Zontar
>Did the article mention when the Kee Bird crashed and what it's final
>mission was?
Nope. All it said was that the plane was on a secret mission to an undesignated
area. Obviously a little Cold War heroics still in the works.
Harold Hutchison
> : You know those Common Strategic Rotary Launchers that they
> : would use on nuclear alert? As it turns out, they can carry a wide
> : variety of CONVENTIONAL weapons, too. Take your pick, AGM-142 HAVE
> : NAP, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-86C ALCM, Mk 84 Snakeyes,
> : BLU-109s, BLU-96s, AGM-130s and GBU-15s. The radar on the Bone can be
>
> 1) No way will an AGM-142 HAVE NAP fit into a CSRL. I'd be surprised if
> you could get it into the bomb bay.
> 2) If you plan to drop Mk 84s about 3 miles apart or keep crossing the
> target as you pickle them off one at a time, then you might use a CSRL. I
> submit that this would not be the best use of this weapon. The same goes
> for any other munition you plan on carrying in the CSRL that is best used
> in groups of more than 1.
If the bombing comouter can place a bomb BETWEEN the legs of a
high-tension power-line tower, you only NEED one bomb.
> 3) Your going to have to have someone buddy lase for those GBUs, and the
> Bone dropping them off one at a time won't be any better than an F-111 or
> F-15E that will be along to lase for it. I assume there won't be many
> grunts around to lase for you on the ground.
IIRC, the GBU-15 and AGM-130 had E/O or IIR guidance via a
datalink. They do NOT need to use laser guidance. In fact JDAM uses
GPS. And that will actually make life EASIER for Bones than it will
for F-111s or F-15Es, since GPS does NOT emit lasers which CAN be
detected.
> : ECM systems that are faulty still have enoguh capability to serve as
> : "bring along Ravens" for the 366th Wing, which grabbed a half-dozen
> : Bones for Mountain Home due to the better speed, maneuverability, and
> : payload, as well as an upgrade that will give it JDAM and the
> : capability to drop the newest CBUs. Did I mention that its jammer is
> : also quite powerful?
>
> Right. The 366th was not happy to lose their AGM-142 capability, and
> would've preferred to wait on the B-1s until their capabilities were
> improved. This was a moot point, however, because the 34th Bomb
> Squadron's B-52Gs were retired suddenly in 1994 due to a Congressional
> budget deal designed to save the F-111s two more years. The 366th didn't
> "grab" 6 B-1s, they were stuck with them and are making do--they have to
> put the best face on it they can. BTW, the Bones can't operate out of
> Mt. Home any more than the B-52s can. The Bones are staying at Ellsworth
> because the airfield won't get the funds to be upgraded to handle them.
> The B-52s had to taxi on the runway and turn around on the hammerhead
> because the taxiways were too narrow at the end and couldn't support the
> weight. I sure the Bone will have the same problem.
>
> I think the ECM assertions you make have been adequately disputed on
> other threads. I am astounded someone would say the B-1 anything
> similar to a Raven in capability.
Well, my source was Tom Clancy's book, Fighter Wing, and I'd
assume he is thorough in his research unless proven otherwise.
Granted in the book, he had a typo on the publisher's side, calling
the EISENHOWER CVN-68 as opposed to the actual designation of CVN-69,
but he's generally been right on a lot of things, and at times has
people wondering if classified information is leaking via his novels.
IMHO, his books are a VERY accurate source to use in the absence of
the "Really Expensive Book Sources."
Keith Wood
Jim Dincau <jdi...@cello.qnet.com> wrote:
[tom...@ekfido.kodak.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
[>
[> In a previous article, Thomas Maier <tma...@andrew.cmu.edu> said:
[> >
[> >Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in and
[> >completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and put it back
[> >together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
[> Yup - it would have cost a tiny bit more, but we wouldn't have lost a
[> priceless piece of history. Whats-his-face who's responsible for this cock-up
[> committed a crime against history in the name of saving a few bucks. I didn't
[> cry, I was outraged.
[ Both of you are incredibaly nieve about the amount of work and
[the support eqipment required to dis-assemble an aircraft as big as
[a B-29. Then what do you do about a runway for an aircraft big enough
[to carry those big chunks. And where do you get an aircraft? any
[idea how much it costs to lease a C-130. Get real Grenamyer would
[have had to have government backing and funding to haul it out in
[pieces.
Now he can move it in a Priority Mail envelope. This is more cost-effective?
Actually, I agree that flying it out is the way -- but when _I_ kluge
something, I make sure it's safe, then I de-kluge it IMMEDIATELY when it is no
longer needed!
And SOP for an experimental flight is fire extinguishing equipment, so where
was it?
--
===============================================================
Keith Wood TV-18 News anchor (Camp Verde AZ)
Host/Producer, The Computer Program, FLYING TIME!, and Infinity Focus.
Gunsite (Orange) alumnus, Team OS/2, Parrothead, N7JUZ, AZ0237 but not a
number (I'm a FREE MAN!), creator of FIRE TEAM and HERO SEEKER
Copyright c 1996 All rights reserved. Distribution by Microsoft Network
constitutes agreement by Microsoft Corporation to pay me $25 per instance
===============================================================
Lee Green MD MPH
> hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu "Harold Hutchison" writes:
> <Dr Lee Green said:>
> > > As regular denizens of r.a.m. know, two things are against my policy here:
> > > saying anything nice about the B-1B, and agreeing with Ed :-) But every
> > > policy has exceptions...
> > Lee, I will soon get you to revamp that policy. Give me a
> > Bone, with the ECM FIXED and with the upgrades to allow it to use
> > JDAM and cluster munitions and a crew that knows its shit, and let you
> > fly in it, and you'll be a believer.
>
> Okay, Harold, but *you* put up the money for all that :)
Harold,
What Paul said ;-) Seriously, we're ALL putting up the money for that, if
the DoD decides to go ahead with the conventional munitions upgrade
program. My carp is about whether we should do that or not.
The demonstration flight you describe I'd take in a minute, and love it no
doubt. My motto isn't "the Bone sucks", I heartily agree it's a
hellacious cool aircraft. If you can get permission, sign me up! I'll
surely rave about what it's like to fly in the thing.
But raving about the joy of flying it is not the same thing as a program
evaluation. For that I'd need things like independent (given the AF's
history of falsifying data about it) confirmation of the ECM working, a
no-asterisks description of just exactly what "working" means as compared
to the original specs and as compared to various threat environments, and
an idea of what it would cost to get it working (I have that from
Congressional investigations which required Rockwell to admit to the
price). I'd need things like the chart of ground roll and distance to
clear a 50ft obstacle vs. GTOW in order to evaluate its real practicality
for forward basing, and service ceiling by weight in dry thrust and A/B to
evaluate the practicality of its claims to be able to do medium-altitude
bombardment. I have those sorts of things for most current inventory US
a/c, but can't seem to get them for the B-1B. Just claims such as "we fly
from bases in Europe all the time" don't tell me much that's useful; a 747
could fly out of Ann Arbor Municipal Airport if you let them take off
nearly empty.
Then we'd have to get into the dicier arena of tradeoffs: spend $X on B-1B
upgrades, shortchange what? The PJ's? Viper flying time? Those are
value judgments, on which we'd never come to agreement of course, since no
two pilots of different AF aircraft would ever agree either! Unless they
agreed that it was the Navy's budget that should be hit ;-)
My point is that to make those value judgments meaningful at all, we need
to really know what this thing will do, and what it costs to make it do
it. Trying to find those things out has led me to three observations:
1) The people claiming great potential for the Bone are those getting
their paychecks from the AF or Rockwell. (Meaning no disrespect to
aircrews; of course one must believe in the aircraft one is flying. No
one should criticize a pilot for not being an unbiased program auditor.)
2) Independent program assessments aren't very optimistic about the aircraft.
3) The AF obstructs independent assessments at every turn. Some examples
are relatively harmless showmanship, e.g., heavily-publicized
"demonstrations" of the B-1B's capabilities which bear little relationship
to practical combat usefulness. Some are near-criminal, e.g., fudging
test results, lying to Congress, and hiding data from GAO auditors.
If the Bone really has the potential the AF claims, why the chicanery?
But I'll still take the flight :-) -Lee
Jim Noetzel
>> Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
>> 2) If you plan to drop Mk 84s about 3 miles apart or keep crossing the
>> target as you pickle them off one at a time, then you might use a CSRL. I
>> submit that this would not be the best use of this weapon. The same goes
>> for any other munition you plan on carrying in the CSRL that is best used
>> in groups of more than 1.
> If the bombing comouter can place a bomb BETWEEN the legs of a
>high-tension power-line tower, you only NEED one bomb.
ah... if a "bombing computer" is soooooo darn good, then why in the
heck do we need laser guided bombs? You might be right on some
points, but you are way off the mark here.
Jim Noetzel
Flying Contraptions Home Page
Jet/Rocket Belts, Flying Platforms, One Man Helicopters
http://www.prysm.net/~jnuts/jnuts.htm
Jim Dincau
>
> In a previous article, Thomas Maier <tma...@andrew.cmu.edu> said:
> >
> >Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in and
> >completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and put it back
> >together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
>
> Yup - it would have cost a tiny bit more, but we wouldn't have lost a
> priceless piece of history. Whats-his-face who's responsible for this cock-up
> committed a crime against history in the name of saving a few bucks. I didn't
> cry, I was outraged.
>
>
> Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
> I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
> (Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@xcski.com)
> "You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
Jim Noetzel
smr...@umich.edu (Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
>Distribution: world
>Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) wrote:
>: You know those Common Strategic Rotary Launchers that they
>: would use on nuclear alert? As it turns out, they can carry a wide
>: variety of CONVENTIONAL weapons, too. Take your pick, AGM-142 HAVE
>: NAP, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-109 Tomahawk, AGM-86C ALCM, Mk 84 Snakeyes,
>: BLU-109s, BLU-96s, AGM-130s and GBU-15s. The radar on the Bone can be
Just because is can be carried doesn't mean the aircraft is CERTIFIED
to carry the weapons. Big difference here..
>1) No way will an AGM-142 HAVE NAP fit into a CSRL. I'd be surprised if
>you could get it into the bomb bay.
strongly second that opinion. My squardron drops the 142, and with
the fins on the missle (and the size) it just isn't going to happen.
I did see something in Aviation Leak a while back about a new and
smaller sized 142 being developed, but I haven't heard anything
official.
>2) If you plan to drop Mk 84s about 3 miles apart or keep crossing the
>target as you pickle them off one at a time, then you might use a CSRL. I
>submit that this would not be the best use of this weapon. The same goes
>for any other munition you plan on carrying in the CSRL that is best used
>in groups of more than 1.
dropping MK-84s of a CSRL is just a plain stupid ass waste. The CSRL
only rotates so fast. It's a missle laucher only. Yeah, you could
plink a Mk-84 off one a time, but what good is that?
>3) Your going to have to have someone buddy lase for those GBUs, and the
>Bone dropping them off one at a time won't be any better than an F-111 or
>F-15E that will be along to lase for it. I assume there won't be many
>grunts around to lase for you on the ground.
I've flown a BUFF on a sortie that used an F-15E to lase a tank. The
bomb we dropped was inert, but the kinetic energy alone blew the
turret off the tank. Pretty cool to watch on video. 'Course us Buff
guys are now out of the PGM business...for now
A 3 ship of Buffs (or Bones) could present a pretty darn big load of
PGMs loitering in the sky...provided (as you said) they have somebody
to lase for them. The problem is survivability... Don't know if
either bomber wants to be making multiple attacks on different
targets, each getting a PGM slammed down there throat. Even though we
carry a butt load (in scientific terms) of weapons, you really have to
guage the amount of threats in the area.
>Steve Ryan
Jim Noetzel
Sooooooooooo much lookin forward to 27.5 hours in 3 flights this week
Walt Shiel
>
>I have another suggestion/question. Could a Sikorsky Skycrane, Chinook, or
>other large helo have lifted the B-29 after they removed the engines? If so,
>they could have just hired a helo to make a couple runs (one for airframe,
>another for the engines, props, etc.) and lifted the thing out to the base at
>Thule, where hangar space is available.
>
I sincerely doubt it. Do you have any idea how much a B-29 weighs? Good grief. It
would probably take a Chinook four-ship to lift it and then they wouldn't have enough
gas to get back to Thule!
>But, noooooooooo! They had to us that piece of crap Carabou, that was just
>barely in better flying shape than the 29!
>
You also need to remember that Greenemeyer (sp?) was operating on a relative shoestring,
using assets he had at his disposal...like that 'Bou he's had for a long time. He knew
full well it was going to be tough to keep even it running satisfactorily but apparently
nobody was willing to donate the use of anything better. There are times when one
simply has to make do...or else forget the whole idea. At least he tried.
--
==>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]
=============================================================
Mota Manuel
>In article <310EFA...@bga.com>, banjo <mus...@bga.com> says:
>>
>>
>>My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>>Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>>
>
>I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
>
Asia is a very big continent, that includes most of Russia, most of Turkey,
all of the coutries around the Persian Gulf, And the other "expected" countries:
China, India, Japan, etc ...
The western limits of Asia are Roughly the Egipt-Israel border (with Africa), the
Ural and the Caucasus mountain range in Russia, and the Bosforus straits in Turkey
(with Europe).
It DOES include Irak!
Bye,
---
Manuel Mota email: mo...@sunvlsi.cern.ch
ECP-MIC CERN, Geneve, Suisse
Richard Caldwell
In Article<bebrrwh.93...@business.utah.edu>,
<beb...@business.utah.edu> writes:
> In article <311066...@bga.com> banjo <mus...@bga.com> writes:
>
> >Iraqis count as Asians.
>
> But they're not Orientals. Iraqis are Asian only because Iraq is
> part of the Asian continent. They are Caucasian.
>
> Bill Huber
>
> >It just seems to me a quirk that the US has only used napalm against
> >Asians.
>
> >Jim
Napalm was invented during WWII and used in both theaters. Yes, we dropped
napalm on good little blond/blue German boys too. However, napalm is more
effective in jungles and on beaches than it is in cities, so it was used more
in the Pacific theater than in the European theater.
Probably the two biggest firebomb (incendiary) attacks in WWII were of Dresden
and Tokyo. Both of these were done from high altitude, with bombers and did
not use napalm, but rather the more conventional incendiary bombs which use
powdered metal, like magnesium, mixed with a powdered oxydizing agent, like
potassium permangenate. These bombs burn much hotter and will burn holes
through wood, concrete, brick, or stone structures to the basement, unlike
napalm, which just spreads around, sticks to stuff, and burns like gasoline.
Since WWII, all of the major wars (Korea & Viet Nam) involving US troops have
been against Asian enemies, so any napalm used would naturally be used on
Asians (and perhaps a few Russian advisors).
Other military operations, such as Panama, Grenada, and the Persian Excursion
may or may not have involved napalm, depending on its tactical effectiveness.
To quote an authority, "War is Hell!" That quote comes from an American who
earned his fame slaughtering other Americans and burning their homes and farms
to the ground, General William Tecumseh Sherman.
Richard
Ed Rasimus
>hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison) wrote:
>
>> If the bombing comouter can place a bomb BETWEEN the legs of a
>>high-tension power-line tower, you only NEED one bomb.
>
>ah... if a "bombing computer" is soooooo darn good, then why in the
>heck do we need laser guided bombs? You might be right on some
>points, but you are way off the mark here.
>
Given the choice between a smart bomb such as an LGB or EOGB in which
the high tech components are "thrown away" with each delivery and a
smart system/dumb bomb combination the smart money goes with the
reusable component concept.
In other words, you don't kill the enemy by throwing dollars at
him/her, you only kill the enemy with firepower. Smart bombs,
stand-off missiles, ALCM,SLCM,GLCM and similar are all expensive
throw-aways which we can't afford to stock in realistic numbers for
the consumption rate expected in any confrontation. Better a bombing
computer on board the vehicle which can be continually reused with
cheap iron.
Simon Lam
The part I'm really really peed off about is the fact that it was one of
very few examples left and they burnt it to the ground! Why didn't they
turn off the aux. generator? Did they have Boeing's operating manuals? I
think it would have been much safer if they'd just dis-mantle the damn
thing, loaded it on many many helicopters, flew it out, and reassembled
it somewhere else. If it means taking off every single rivet, fine! It's
worth it. But alas, it is too late.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
(But it often helps)
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Ron Miller
: think it would have been much safer if they'd just dis-mantle the damn
: thing, loaded it on many many helicopters, flew it out, and reassembled
: it somewhere else. If it means taking off every single rivet, fine! It's
: worth it. But alas, it is too late.
Safer, yes.
Would it have made financial sense?
What if the recovery effort cost $10M and the refinished airplane is only
worth $3M?
Yes, it's the loss of a priceless artifact. But whose money would have been used
to rescue it safely?
I think the whole episode is a very complicated set of compromises, risks
and judgement calls. I'll bet Grenamyer wishes he could have back the
moment where the thought "Hey! The APU is still running!" crossed his mind
so he could go back and have it shut off........
Thank god no one was killed in the fire. At least that went right.
Ron Miller
mark_orr
chemical weapons such as Sarin an Tabun are treated with such disdain while
Napalm and Flechette ammo get only occasional criticism. Sarin and other
nerve agents are very "humane" weapons by comparison, causing rapid
failure of the nervous system, and immediate cardio-vascular failure.
Loss of consiousness is rapid. Lets face it war is dumb, inhumane, stupid
etc. I think there should be a law where if a war starts, the children of
the politicians and generals must be the first to serve on the front lines,
maybe then they will try a little harder to stop it from happening. Its
always the poor and innocent then end up doing all the dying.
Mark
mark_orr
>
>: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
>
>We used Napalm in Iraq? What good is Napalm on sand?
>
the sand. Better get that SPF 100000000 on.
Mark
Robert J. Granvin
In article <4f6e1f$7...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>, aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
|> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN]
|> Xref: newsstand.tc.umn.edu rec.aviation.military:70223
|>
|> Distribution:
|>
|> The part I'm really really peed off about is the fact that it was one of
|> very few examples left and they burnt it to the ground! Why didn't they
|> turn off the aux. generator? Did they have Boeing's operating manuals? I
|> thing, loaded it on many many helicopters, flew it out, and reassembled
|> it somewhere else. If it means taking off every single rivet, fine! It's
|> worth it. But alas, it is too late.
As far as the Auxiliary Generator in the tail, the standard procedure is
to to start the generator, start the engines and leave the generator
running throughout the flight. The last thing that gets shut down is the
generator after landing.
Reasons: I'm not sure. However, it's very possibly a backup or
supplemental electrical source for the aircraft. The big bird with all
of it's high tech (at the time :-) electrically driven stuff might have
required the secondary source for electricity. (I know that the electrical
generators on the twin-engine B-25 run pretty tight as far as the available
amps go...)
|>
|> --
|> Simon Lam
|> It's the man, not the machine.
|> (But it often helps)
|> E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
|>
\\ Robert J. Granvin Cupid's Little Secret Service
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota EMAIL: r...@stat.umn.edu
ICBM: 44.924 -93.312
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
Steve Gilliard
>In article <310EFA...@bga.com> mus...@bga.com "banjo" writes:
>> My question is - Has the US ever used napalm against enemy that wasn't
>> Asian? I don't believe it was used in Europe during WWII.
>> Jim
The first use of Napalm was against Germans in Normandy. It
worked, but because of the number of civilians and built up
structures, it was of limited usefulness. You didn't want to
hit your own people.
It worked far better in Asia and the Pacific.
http://www.tiac.net/users/gilliard
The Gilliard News
Lou Haas
money did they piss away?
Anyone have an idea?
Terra Corp.
: Given the choice between a smart bomb such as an LGB or EOGB in which
: the high tech components are "thrown away" with each delivery and a
: smart system/dumb bomb combination the smart money goes with the
: reusable component concept.
: In other words, you don't kill the enemy by throwing dollars at
: him/her, you only kill the enemy with firepower. Smart bombs,
: stand-off missiles, ALCM,SLCM,GLCM and similar are all expensive
: throw-aways which we can't afford to stock in realistic numbers for
: the consumption rate expected in any confrontation. Better a bombing
: computer on board the vehicle which can be continually reused with
: cheap iron.
Sorry, but this is false economy. Having spent time in the bomb
business, I can say the #1 factor in buying bombs is cost per kill. And
this is not just (weapon cost/Pk), since the overriding cost in many
cases is a/c attrition. If it takes extra sorties to kill a target, you
increase the probability of losing an a/c, and the cost of 1 F-16 will
buy a while bunch of smart bombs.
A GBU-12 may cost 5 times what a Mk82 does, but the cost per kill is less
than half when attacking certain targets.
The fact is we need a wide variety of weapons (smart and dumb) to take
care of all the targets out there. A GBU-24 does a good job on small hard
targets like shelters, but it is almost worthless against an infantry
company out in the open. A little software in an F-16 or A-10 and a
couple of cheap, dumb CBU-87s will do wonders against infantry.
For every target type there is a preferred weapon based on the JMEMs
(Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals) and COEA (Cost and Operational
Effectiveness Analysis.) Procurement decisions are made based on the
estimates of how many targets of each type we expect to encounter (and
later modified by budgets and politicians.)
There are still several really awesome systems that haven't gotten out of
the lab because, while they are unbelievably effective, they just cost
too much to be "cost effective."
Gerry (Maj, AF, Ret)
--
Gerry Caron "Opinions are mine, not my employer's."
gca...@rt66.com PH: 800-328-1995 or 505-884-2321
Terra Corp. ABQ FAX: 505-884-2384
Stephen M. Ryan
: I was at Mt. Home in the middle '60's with the 9th Bomb wing (H) as a
: mechanic. We had B-47's at the time and I'm sure they were as heavy and
: wide as a B-1B. Ramp and taxiway area was more than sufficient. Also, the
: California Bearing Ratio was up to the task of handling heavy jets.
: Chuck-7MY
I don't doubt B-47s used the airfield, but the 34th Bomb Squadron's B-52s
could not taxi on the entire taxiway, and could only park on parts of the
airfield due to weight considerations. We could only take off or land
there partially loaded to keep the weight down. The B-1 is nearly as
heavy, and I understand it has a similar weight distribution as the
B-52. Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and
personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
spend. I predict the B-1s will stay at Ellsworth given the current
budget atmosphere and internal resistance in the AF to the composite wing
idea.
Steve Ryan
Bill Garnett
> Jim Dincau > wrote:
> [ (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> [>
> [> >Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but couldn't they have gone in
> and [> >completely taken the thing apart, shipped the pieces out and
> put it back [> >together where it was warm and they had lots of time?
> [>
> [> Yup - it would have cost a tiny bit more, but we wouldn't have lost
> a [> priceless piece of history. Whats-his-face who's responsible
> for this cock-up [> committed a crime against history in the name
> of saving a few bucks. I didn't [> cry, I was outraged.
>
> B-29. Then what do you do about a runway for an aircraft big enough
> [to carry those big chunks. And where do you get an aircraft? any
> [idea how much it costs to lease a C-130. Get real Grenamyer would
> [have had to have government backing and funding to haul it out in
> [pieces.
>
> more cost-effective?
>
Maybe he could...I'll bet money YOU can't! It's quite a walk to the nearest
post office.
> Actually, I agree that flying it out is the way -- but when _I_
> kluge something, I make sure it's safe, then I de-kluge it
> IMMEDIATELY when it is no longer needed!
>
> And SOP for an experimental flight is fire extinguishing equipment,
> so where was it?
>
======================================================================
"The credit belongs to those who are actually in the arena, who strive
valliantly; who know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spend
themselves in a worthy cause; who at the best, know the triumph of high
achievement; and who, at the worst, if they fail, fail while daring greatly,
so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know
neither victory or defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
======================================================================
Bill Garnett (Air Race Fanatic)
bew...@chevron.com
P-51, Cadillac of the sky!
Lee Green MD MPH
(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
> I don't doubt B-47s used the airfield, but the 34th Bomb Squadron's B-52s
> could not taxi on the entire taxiway, and could only park on parts of the
> airfield due to weight considerations. We could only take off or land
> there partially loaded to keep the weight down. The B-1 is nearly as
> heavy, and I understand it has a similar weight distribution as the
> B-52.
Actually, this may not be true. The ACC's public affairs office has not
been willing to share the Bone's LCN with me so I can't really tell you
what its loading is, but by way of comparison the Bone runs a main gear
tire pressure of up to 280 PSI, almost twice that of the much heavier
KC-10 fully loaded. The Bone may weigh less than a loaded BUFF, but could
still put higher pressure per unit area on pavement because of the number
and diameter of tires and the area it spreads over; it certainly weighs
less than a loaded Extender, but stresses concrete more. Anyone have the
BUFF's main-gear tire pressure handy?
In any event, I do know that billions were spent upgrading bases already
handling BUFFs to be able to handle Bones, so there is clearly some
difference.
In fairness, I have learned that the extra-thick runways at Dyess were
intended for the Bone's heaviest GTOW, the 477,000 lb loading the AF no
longer uses, but even at its present 431,600 it's still a lot of pressure
per unit area.
> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and
> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
> spend.
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
Jim Noetzel
>jn...@prysm.net (Jim Noetzel) wrote:
>>hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu (Harold Hutchison) wrote:
>>
some stuff that was taken out of context....
My beef was with the CSRL dropping single MK-84s on targets. And then
the assertion that only one was needed because the bombing computer
real accurate. Bullshit. You still need the PD and to get it you
need to lay some heavy iron in the area, and one Mk-84 spaced out
every couple of thousand feet isn't going to do it.
That's all. I like conventional weapons, I really do. Get to drop
some Wednesday at Hardwood.
Jim
Karon
Wrong! The politicians and generals are the leaders. LET THEM LEAD!
Karon
------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell All Reality is Virtual
I am me and only me
Whatever that may be.
Stephen Swartz
>
>In article <4f65ob$7...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, smr...@umich.edu
>(Stephen M. Ryan) wrote:
>
>> I don't doubt B-47s used the airfield, but the 34th Bomb Squadron's B-52s
>> could not taxi on the entire taxiway, and could only park on parts of the
>> airfield due to weight considerations. We could only take off or land
>> there partially loaded to keep the weight down. The B-1 is nearly as
>> heavy, and I understand it has a similar weight distribution as the
>> B-52.
>
>Actually, this may not be true. The ACC's public affairs office has not
>been willing to share the Bone's LCN with me so I can't really tell you
>what its loading is, but by way of comparison the Bone runs a main gear
>tire pressure of up to 280 PSI, almost twice that of the much heavier
High tire pressure=high ramp loadings? A bundle of assumptions there.
>KC-10 fully loaded. The Bone may weigh less than a loaded BUFF, but could
>still put higher pressure per unit area on pavement because of the number
>and diameter of tires and the area it spreads over; it certainly weighs
>less than a loaded Extender, but stresses concrete more. Anyone have the
>BUFF's main-gear tire pressure handy?
Lee, what we need is the lb/in^2 load factor. Until we get the AF TO
citation on lb/in^2 load factor- at ramp weight- the discussion goes
nowhere.
FWIW, this load factor should be based not on some "maximum carrying
capacity at altitude after refueling," but on a standard mission profile
ramp weight.
Very few high performance military aircraft sit on the ramp at max gross.
Even fewer take off at max gross. We load them up with bombs, put
enough gas on them to get them to the ARCP, and that's how they launch.
Once they meet their tanker, they fuel up. Most times they fuel up post-
strike as well.
Comments about ramp weight, ramp loads, bomb load limitations, fuel load
limitations, combat radius limitations, etc. should take this into
account. The "max gross" ramp weight figures apply only to SIOP alert
configurations. Historically a limited CONUS-based mission.
>
>In any event, I do know that billions were spent upgrading bases already
>handling BUFFs to be able to handle Bones, so there is clearly some
>difference.
As indicated before, that's unadulterated deception. Since you have the
budget numbers handy, what is the line-item breakdown for costs due to
the CASS construction? Take that out. How much of the construction
went to dormitories, office buildings, and other programs? Take those
out. How much of the cost went to "upgrading the ramp" to provide
employment opportunities for local contractors? Take that out. What are
you left with?
>
>In fairness, I have learned that the extra-thick runways at Dyess were
>intended for the Bone's heaviest GTOW, the 477,000 lb loading the AF no
>longer uses, but even at its present 431,600 it's still a lot of pressure
>per unit area.
A perfect example of what I have previously noted. Why do you think the
477,000 gross figure was used in the first place, Lee?
>
>> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
>> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and
>> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
>> spend.
Take all of these expenses, examine them objectively and critically, and
it's quite a Potemkin village you've got there, Lee.
***********************************************************************
* =8^) - Unionism->Collectivism->Socialism->Tyranny->Death *
* Steve - "All that is required for evil to triumph is for *
* Swartz good men to do nothing." *
* - "Satan has walked the earth in the form of a man; *
* NRA Life and his name was Robin Hood." *
* AFA Life - "Who is John Galt?" *
***********************************************************************
Paul Tomblin
>OK, I was just as upset as the rest of you when the B-29 burned up, but at
>least Darryl Greenamyer tried to recover it. It's easy for the rest of us
>to sit in front of the keyboard & pass judgement, but we weren't there and
>(at least most of us) will never have the guts to try....
Or everybody else who was tempted to try realized (after doing some PLANNING)
that they didn't have the resources to do it right, and decided that a warbird
is better left where somebody else could do it right later than destroyed in
the process of doing a poorly planned, poorly resourced, half-assed job of
trying to recover it. Greenamyer didn't do any planning, didn't realize that
he didn't have the resources, and didn't have the intelligence to realize the
gaps in his knowledge.
He's a cowboy, and his cowboy attitude lost us one of the best chances we ever
had to get another B-29.
Eric Gross
>We used Napalm in Iraq? What good is Napalm on sand?
Very good, if that sand is in the shape of a trench containing oil . . . .
The only known "official" use of nape in the Gulf War was to ignite and burn
off a few of the fire trenches in the Saddam Line.
Lee Green MD MPH
> In article <greenla-0602...@manfred.med.umich.edu>,
gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) says:
> High tire pressure=high ramp loadings? A bundle of assumptions there.
No, only one, really: that the tires deform under load. If they do, then
the pressure inside has to equal the pressure on the ground.
> FWIW, this load factor should be based not on some "maximum carrying
> capacity at altitude after refueling," but on a standard mission profile
> ramp weight.
It seems to me that there are two legitimate bases for the factor:
standard mission profile ramp weight, and max GTOW. That's gross takeoff,
not max in the air after refueling. Part of the problem is that the
mission profile is not usually specified in AF claims for the Bone's
basing flexibility, so one can't really evaluate those claims or their
implications (such as strain on tanker logistics).
> Very few high performance military aircraft sit on the ramp at max gross.
> Even fewer take off at max gross. We load them up with bombs, put
> enough gas on them to get them to the ARCP, and that's how they launch.
I've read extended interviews with Beagle drivers who claim they do indeed
launch at their max gross of 81,000 lb. Sometimes they do so with partial
fuel in order to carry extra ordnance, but they don't have to launch below
max GTOW from any of our bases. That's the kind of detail which makes a
difference in evaluating the practical utility of a weapons system.
> Comments about ramp weight, ramp loads, bomb load limitations, fuel load
> limitations, combat radius limitations, etc. should take this into
> account. The "max gross" ramp weight figures apply only to SIOP alert
> configurations. Historically a limited CONUS-based mission.
Absolutely, a good point.
> budget numbers handy, what is the line-item breakdown for costs due to
> the CASS construction? Take that out. How much of the construction
> went to dormitories, office buildings, and other programs? Take those
> out. How much of the cost went to "upgrading the ramp" to provide
> employment opportunities for local contractors? Take that out. What are
> you left with?
Unfortunately, it's not really that neat; AF accounting is notoriously
Byzantine. As best I can figure it, somewhere in the neighborhood of
$500-600 million (of $1.2 billion) went for concrete. Now, how much of
that was really needed, vs. how much was Congressional pork for local
contractors, well that's a fair question. (And begs the question of
whether the whole B-1B program has been pork from the start, and basing
just another example thereof.)
> A perfect example of what I have previously noted. Why do you think the
> 477,000 gross figure was used in the first place, Lee?
It's the AF's number, and was considered correct by the AF at the time
they pitched the basing mods to Congress.
> >> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
> >> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and
> >> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
> >> spend.
>
>
> Take all of these expenses, examine them objectively and critically, and
> it's quite a Potemkin village you've got there, Lee.
I don't agree. Discount as many items as you want, but I do not believe
you would have a hope or prayer of modifying Mountain Home to handle Bones
for less than $300 million or so in current dollars (the $1.2 billion
spent elsewhere was 1985 dollars). At one time the budget did call for
modifying Mountain Home by 1998, but those bucks are no longer budgeted
AFAIK. The original poster's comment remains correct: there is no way the
AF is going to take those dollars away from its other priorities.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
gre...@umich.edu your personal physician. These posts are my
KF8MO personal doings, not a service of nor the
responsibility of the University of Michigan.
BUFFIRN
weight for the Buff. Why not carry your fuel with you? Why depend on a
tanker to get airborne. True, most missions have required refuelings, but
it is better to take more gas at TO and have one less refueling or a
lighter onload. I don't know how the Bone handles, but the pilots told me
that the Buff gets very sluggish during a heavy onload. Makes sense to
me.
I have seen the Buff and Bone work out of Moron AB, Spain. Both planes
took off at near max gross. Refueling was limited. What I remember was
that both used about 8000 feet of the runway. Basically, if a Buff can
use the runway, so can a Bone. Similar takeoff performance. The Buff has
a heavier footprint. Those 8 big tires in a straight line really put the
pressure down. The Bones undercarriage distributes the weight better.
As for operating out of Mountain Home. I deployed there with B-52's. I
have no doubts that both planes can operate out ofthere. The question is,
will the ramps, taxiways, and runway withstand daily operations. There is
a big difference. Occaisional versus constant stress. I tend to believe
that the airfield isn't the problem at Mountain Home, the logistics train
is. The facilities there are not designed for Buff or Bone operations.
That $300 million figure probably includes new hangers along with the
ramps and the like. Knowing the AF, it also includes new curbs for the
housing area and a bigger parking lot at the O Club.
Jim Williams
Crusty old BUFF guy
"I speak for no one!"
Simon Lam
Distribution:
: Safer, yes.
: Would it have made financial sense?
A piece of history like that rare B-29 is priceLESS. Also, couldn't they
get more help with getting that thing back to flying condition? More
financial support? I'm sure many people would volunteer.
: Yes, it's the loss of a priceless artifact. But whose money would have been used
: to rescue it safely?
As I said, donations.
: I think the whole episode is a very complicated set of compromises, risks
: and judgement calls. I'll bet Grenamyer wishes he could have back the
: moment where the thought "Hey! The APU is still running!" crossed his mind
: so he could go back and have it shut off........
Why didn't he shut the bloody APU right after the engines started? Why
didn't they make a check list?
Stephen Swartz
>
>In article <4fairj$n...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, int...@ostp.eop.gov wrote:
>
>> In article <greenla-0602...@manfred.med.umich.edu>,
>gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH) says:
>
**** SNIP ****
>> FWIW, this load factor should be based not on some "maximum carrying
>> capacity at altitude after refueling," but on a standard mission profile
>> ramp weight.
>
>It seems to me that there are two legitimate bases for the factor:
>standard mission profile ramp weight, and max GTOW. That's gross takeoff,
>not max in the air after refueling. Part of the problem is that the
Why max GTOW if the aircraft will never be asked to take off at max GTOW?
Yes, something close to max GTOW is relevant for SIOP-alert type mission
loads. By the way, the civilian aircraft designers, infrastructure
builders and maintainers, and operators make the same decisions, analyses,
etc. They don't use max GTOW for ramp loadings/basing decisions either.
They use mission profiles for the route structure they'll be flying. Civ
and Mil aircraft alike don't take off (or sit on the ramp, for that
matter) with gratuitously high aircraft weights. It's not very practical.
>mission profile is not usually specified in AF claims for the Bone's
>basing flexibility, so one can't really evaluate those claims or their
>implications (such as strain on tanker logistics).
Break it down into SIOP and non-SIOP. Your basing limitations are valid
for SIOP requirements. No disagreement there. But get away from the
"take off fully loaded" assumption, and the "basing flexibility"
envelope for the B-1 expands considerably. A thumbnail view (repeated
once more): "any base the BUFF can use, the Bone can use."
>
>> Very few high performance military aircraft sit on the ramp at max gross.
>> Even fewer take off at max gross. We load them up with bombs, put
>> enough gas on them to get them to the ARCP, and that's how they launch.
>
>I've read extended interviews with Beagle drivers who claim they do indeed
>launch at their max gross of 81,000 lb. Sometimes they do so with partial
>fuel in order to carry extra ordnance, but they don't have to launch below
>max GTOW from any of our bases. That's the kind of detail which makes a
>difference in evaluating the practical utility of a weapons system.
>
Come on, apples and oranges. That's the kind of detail conveniently
placed in specific contexts to attempt to support a particular point of
view. A max gross of 81,000 lbs? What does this mosquito-class example
have to do with the B-1? Sometimes- key word- sometimes the Bone takes
off at max gross from our airfields, too. Sometimes it takes off with
partial fuel in order to carry extra ordinance, too. Given a mission
profile of:
- maximum load of conventional dumb bombs (to bias against the bone)
- enough fuel for TO, climb to 20,000 and 30 minutes cruise to ARCP
- higher than standard pressure altitude (to bias against the bone)
Under these conditions, how much runway does a B-1B need? Those are the
specific details to consider for a basing assessment. Given a successful
refueling, and starting at 20,000, with said load of bombs, how valuable
and effective is the B-1B?
>
>> Comments about ramp weight, ramp loads, bomb load limitations, fuel load
>> limitations, combat radius limitations, etc. should take this into
>> account. The "max gross" ramp weight figures apply only to SIOP alert
>> configurations. Historically a limited CONUS-based mission.
>
>Absolutely, a good point.
>
>
>> budget numbers handy, what is the line-item breakdown for costs due to
>> the CASS construction? Take that out. How much of the construction
>> went to dormitories, office buildings, and other programs? Take those
>> out. How much of the cost went to "upgrading the ramp" to provide
>> employment opportunities for local contractors? Take that out. What are
>> you left with?
>
>Unfortunately, it's not really that neat; AF accounting is notoriously
>Byzantine. As best I can figure it, somewhere in the neighborhood of
>$500-600 million (of $1.2 billion) went for concrete. Now, how much of
>that was really needed, vs. how much was Congressional pork for local
>contractors, well that's a fair question. (And begs the question of
>whether the whole B-1B program has been pork from the start, and basing
>just another example thereof.)
The same "pork" principle applies equally well to the B-17, B-25, B-29,
etc., etc., etc. B-1 is not unique here. Wilbur and Orville used the
contract for the Wright Flier to upgrade their machine shop and buy new
suits. Barney and Fred used the contract for the Pterodactyl Bomber
to put new animal skins over their cave entrance. So what?
I am pretty thoroughly acquainted with federal budget ledgerdemain. That
was my point. You can't separate the concrete from the CASS. CASS
installation required that the ramp be torn up- to the bed- and rebuilt
(or laid in from scratch). You can't point to a single thin dime of any
of that money and claim that it would be required to be spent to "upgrade"
any other existing base. Can't be done.
What you can do, on a case by case basis, is apply a mission profile (see
above), determine ramp/runway requirements, then pull out a table of
specs for potential bases and simply mumble "yes-no-yes-yes-no" etc as you
go over the list. If you were to do that objectively, you would find that
your list is long enough already. This is done, by the way, pretty much
as I described it, by the log planners and tactical planners on active
duty every day.
>
>> A perfect example of what I have previously noted. Why do you think the
>> 477,000 gross figure was used in the first place, Lee?
>
>It's the AF's number, and was considered correct by the AF at the time
>they pitched the basing mods to Congress.
Yup. For the SIOP bases using CASS (by the way, on paper, CASS was a
tremendous cost saver). Too bad we won the cold war. Sure made us look
stupid, huh, wasting all that money on the B-1 bases . . .
>
>> >> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
>> >> weight standards, plus adding the required maintenance facilities and
>> >> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
>> >> spend.
>>
>>
>> Take all of these expenses, examine them objectively and critically, and
>> it's quite a Potemkin village you've got there, Lee.
>
>I don't agree. Discount as many items as you want, but I do not believe
>you would have a hope or prayer of modifying Mountain Home to handle Bones
>for less than $300 million or so in current dollars (the $1.2 billion
>spent elsewhere was 1985 dollars). At one time the budget did call for
>modifying Mountain Home by 1998, but those bucks are no longer budgeted
>AFAIK. The original poster's comment remains correct: there is no way the
>AF is going to take those dollars away from its other priorities.
>
You are claiming or hinting that in order to fly the Bone out of Mountain
Home would require 300 million dollars? You don't really mean that, do
you?
Hasn't the Bone been operating out of Mountain Home off and on over the
last few years?
**sigh**
Steve
"Defending the B-1B isn't really my full time job"
Swartz
Lou Haas
Viper
> My father flew with the 20FG of the 8AF out of England during WWII. He
> told me that on occasion during straffing attacks they would drop their
> wing tanks so that subsequent straffing runs would ignite them.
According to what I read about honourable Chuck, he almost emptied his
0.5" s trying to ignite them, with no success...
Comments? :-)
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| | ...Never take half-measures! ...Only unlimited, |
| -=# Viper #=- | overwhelming, preventive strikes... |
| | Viper. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Gary T. Craze
>
>
>
> He's a cowboy, and his cowboy attitude lost us one of the best chances we ever
> had to get another B-29.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
>
God help us if the cowboy ever goes away......
This country owes them a lot.
Gary
(Born deep in the heart of Texas, San Antonio)
--
Gary T. Craze
Compaq Computer Corporation Houston, TX
gcr...@bangate.compaq.com
*Comments contained herein are my own and do not reflect those
of Compaq Computer Corporation *
Visit Compaq on the WWW at http://www.compaq.com
sa...@jpj.gov.my
>
> >
> >: I'm no sociologist, but geeze, I never knew that Iraquis were Asian!?
> >
> >
>
> the sand. Better get that SPF 100000000 on.
>
> Mark
>
>>>>
They know nothing .. just poor people
Go and kill Saddam Hussain and not the people...
Stephen M. Ryan
: >
: >> >> Take the expense of bringing the airfield up to B-1 or even B-52
: >> >> personnel, and you are talking big bucks that the USAF not going to
: >> >> spend.
: >I don't agree. Discount as many items as you want, but I do not believe
: >you would have a hope or prayer of modifying Mountain Home to handle Bones
: >for less than $300 million or so in current dollars (the $1.2 billion
: >spent elsewhere was 1985 dollars). At one time the budget did call for
: >modifying Mountain Home by 1998, but those bucks are no longer budgeted
: >AFAIK. The original poster's comment remains correct: there is no way the
: >AF is going to take those dollars away from its other priorities.
: You are claiming or hinting that in order to fly the Bone out of Mountain
: Home would require 300 million dollars? You don't really mean that, do
: you?
: Hasn't the Bone been operating out of Mountain Home off and on over the
: last few years?
I think he is pretty close...from its inception, the 366th Wing was
planned to have the 34th Bomb Squadron based at Mt. Home, but Air Combat
Command could not get the money to upgrade the facilities. As I
mentioned previously, the ramp and runway were inadequate for a B-52 or a
B-1 to do more than visit Mt. Home. Sure, we "operated" our B-52s out of
there on a regular basis, and the Bones could "operate" under the same
restrictions, but it was very impractical. Having an airplane tie up
the runway for an extra ten minutes to back-taxi for takeoff while you're
trying to launch and recover 15 fighters is a big pain in the ass. Heavy
parking spots were limited, (the 4 KC-135Rs took up most of it), and
wasn't a very "heavy" ramp anyway. We always operated pretty light out
of there.
The composite wing idea has been attacked over and over as not cost
efficient because it is too expensive to have 5 different aircraft types
maintained at one base. The AF would rather spend its shrinking budget on
new toys and not the 366th Wing, which (because it was a McPeak idea) is
under increasing political attack as within the AF. I don't agree, but
there is significant political opposition to its continued existence. So,
whether it's $100 million or $300 million, the B-1s are not going to be
based at Mt Home, IMHO. It definitely will cost something, and it just
ain't gonna happen.
Steve Ryan
Lee Green MD MPH
> Why max GTOW if the aircraft will never be asked to take off at max GTOW?
...
> Break it down into SIOP and non-SIOP. Your basing limitations are valid
> for SIOP requirements. No disagreement there. But get away from the
> "take off fully loaded" assumption, and the "basing flexibility"
> envelope for the B-1 expands considerably.
Depending on what you mean by flexibility. Taking off well below max GTOW
surely gets one the ability to get into and out of many more bases, but it
also either increases dependence on tanker resources or reduces useful
range.
The Bone "can" do a lot of things, but whether it's practical to use it
for those things compared to the other alternatives is another matter.
The justifications advanced for spending incremental billions on fixing
and upgrading Bones are pushed based on notions of basing flexibility and
range which come from different scenarios. Numbers which are true, in the
technical sense, are used to paint a picture of capabilities which is
misleading.
> - maximum load of conventional dumb bombs (to bias against the bone)
> - enough fuel for TO, climb to 20,000 and 30 minutes cruise to ARCP
> - higher than standard pressure altitude (to bias against the bone)
>
> Under these conditions, how much runway does a B-1B need? Those are the
> specific details to consider for a basing assessment. Given a successful
> refueling, and starting at 20,000, with said load of bombs, how valuable
> and effective is the B-1B?
Compared to the BUFF which took off fully loaded and needs less tanker
support, not very. Compared to a four-ship of Beagles, which don't need
any more tanking than the Bone, can carry PGMs now without megabucks spent
on upgrades and can defend themselves or bug out at Mach 1.5 if bounced,
not very.
The point isn't "the Bone sucks". The point is that everything is a
tradeoff. We have X bucks to spend; we can't have everything on our list
of things which would be useful to some extent. We must pick what's most
useful. What sets me off about the Bone is that its proponents are
painting it as more useful than it is, "demonstrating" it has capabilities
for which the Bone just isn't a practical choice compared to the
alternatives, and hiding the limitations of the scenarios in which those
capabilities are demonstrated.
> The same "pork" principle applies equally well to the B-17, B-25, B-29,
> etc., etc., etc. B-1 is not unique here....So what?
We've bought pork in the past. Hence we must buy more? The Bone isn't
unique, perhaps, but it's clearly an outlier in the amount and flagrancy
of pork involved.
> Too bad we won the cold war. Sure made us look
> stupid, huh, wasting all that money on the B-1 bases . . .
This is the sort of over-attribution to the Bone of which I speak. The
notion that the Lancer had anything to do with us winning the Cold War is
absurd. The "window of vulnerability" for which the Bone was bought never
existed, and the AF knew it. The CIA has been forced to admit as much
publicly in testimony on Capitol Hill. For another look at it, read
Andrei Gromyko's marvelously candid autobiography. The Russians never
regarded the B-1B as a substantive threat over and above the B-52G and H.
The DoD knew the Bones weren't really useful in that regard, which is why
they gave them up as nuclear platforms in START II. Good negotiating
tactic, a cheap giveaway.
> You are claiming or hinting that in order to fly the Bone out of Mountain
> Home would require 300 million dollars? You don't really mean that, do
> you?
I most certainly do. See below.
> Hasn't the Bone been operating out of Mountain Home off and on over the
> last few years?
I don't know if it has or not, but that's not the same thing as the base
being suitable for regular operations by a squadron of B-1Bs. The AF
requested serious money to upgrade Mountain Home to handle Bones in 1998.
They didn't do that on a lark, I presume, nor are the 366th's attached
Bones housed elsewhere for no reason. Those upgrade dollars are not in
the budget now, and I will be quite surprised if Bones are based at MH in
1998.
> Steve
> "Defending the B-1B isn't really my full time job"
> Swartz
and bashing it isn't mine, either, but my taxes pay for the beast and I'd
like something more useful for my money!
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Finn Jorgensen
Eric Jimerson writes:
|> Remember always this: The way to win a war is to incapacitate,
|> via death or wounds, your opponent, so that he cannot do the same to
|> you.
All those women and kids in VietNam were out to incapacitate the US soldiers ?
What you did there was plain terror to break the morale of the vietnamese.
|> The thought that weapon must be "humane" in order to justify
|> its employment comes from those who have never been in comabt fighting
|> for their lives, when the only thing that matters is using whatever
|> means are at hand to kill that other guy before he does the same to
|> you.
I'd say, in the case of VietNam, that the best way to avoid getting
killed would have been not to go there.
The Vietnamese never tried to invade the US, so you should have left them
alone.
I know this is more political of nature, but I fail to see why the US
always wants to intervene when some country somewhere makes a move that
the US disapproves.
Finn
--
Finn Bo Jorgensen, E-Mail : Finn.jo...@irisa.fr Tel : 99 84 72 01
IFSIC, bureau TB122, Universite de Rennes
Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 RENNES CEDEX, FRANCE
Theodore J. Crowley II
To Paul Coggan,
Do you even have a pilots license?? Have you ever flown a warbird? Have
you ever restored one? Have you ever packed a hub of a propeller?
Changed a main landing gear wheel?
Have you ever realized the cost youself of a warbird? Not a friends but
your after tax dollars?
I am sick of looking at comments of people who don't fly airplanes or
rebuild or maintain them.
Theodore J. Crowley, II
.yes I do all of the above!