B-52 dive bombers?
freedom
Yeff
freedom<anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in
soc.veterans:
> Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
Yep. It's usually followed by the phrase "accident review
board."
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Thom Lyons
>In article <1672fb981d70d794...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
> freedom<anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in
> soc.veterans:
>
>> Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
>
>Yep. It's usually followed by the phrase "accident review
>board."
>
I love it.
THOM
formally with the 11th SAW, Altus, Oklahoma
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, soc.veterans
>Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
>
No Moore, WHY don't you tell us ALL about them? In your VAST experience.
Marshall Smith
"PangK" <pa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000729102357...@ng-de1.aol.com...
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, soc.veterans
>
>>Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
>>
>
> No Moore, WHY don't you tell us ALL about them? In your VAST experience.
>
>
Seems that you're the one who claims to have flown "missions" in them.
As attested to by several of your old "pals" on Fidonet, who used to
rip apart your lies daily.
Kind of like I've been doing to you on alt.dads....
http://www.anet.com/~freedom/pangk.html
"How liars are best exposed."
freedom
<vax...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why dont you tell us about your Half Vast experience?
While Ken's at it, perhaps he could tell us about his missions with the
Parachute Ski Marines?
For those of you who are curious about Ken Pangborn, his honest-to-god
picture is posted at:
http://www.anet.com/~freedom/pangk.html
>
>
>"PangK" <pa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000729102357...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Dave Thompson
news:1672fb981d70d794...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
> Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
Sure! They fly a team effort with the F4's that mark the jungle canopy with
afterburners. Just ask Phyllis.
Dave
PangK
>> >Is anyone familiar with the phrase "B-52 dive bomber"?
>> No Moore, WHY don't you tell us ALL about them? In your VAST experience.
>Why dont you tell us about your Half Vast experience?
Well Mr. Smith, since I have NO familiarity of "Buff" being capable of
"dive bombing" I think we will have to rely on Mr. Moore for these fictional
tales. Or maybe you could enlighten us on that kind of mission?
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, fl.general
>While Ken's at it, perhaps he could tell us about his missions with the
Parachute Ski Marines?
Gee Moore, wasn't that YOUR old outfit? The one that you couldn't re-enlist
in because it was overbooked?
Really David, I'd like to hear again your defense on your discharge status
and re-enlistment code. The part where you said it was because as a tank
crewman the Marines weren't allowing men to reenlist. Don't let the BONUS' the
Marines have been offering since before your discharge date for YOUR specialty
to reenlist. All anyone needs to do is check ANY Marine or Navy recruiter and
check what the current BONUS is for tank weapons people. Oh David, go back to a
newsgroup where there are NO veterans who can feret out REALITY.
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, fl.general, wi.general
>Seems that you're the one who claims to have flown "missions" in them.
>As attested to by several of your old "pals" on Fidonet, who used to
>rip apart your lies daily.
David, I only flew a few missions in Buff.
And NO they didn't rip me apart. That is one more of your delusions.
freedom
Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.veterans, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, fl.general
>
>>While Ken's at it, perhaps he could tell us about his missions with the
>Parachute Ski Marines?
>
> Gee Moore, wasn't that YOUR old outfit?
According to several people who remember you from Fidonet, you claimed
it was yours.
>The one that you couldn't re-enlist
>in because it was overbooked?
>
> Really David, I'd like to hear again your defense on your discharge status
>and re-enlistment code.
So far there hasn't been any "offense" regarding it... aside from a
slew of unproven allegations by you.
>The part where you said it was because as a tank
>crewman the Marines weren't allowing men to reenlist. Don't let the BONUS' the
>Marines have been offering since before your discharge date for YOUR specialty
>to reenlist. All anyone needs to do is check ANY Marine or Navy recruiter and
>check what the current BONUS is for tank weapons people.
Well, I would think that would be irrelevant, since I was not a "tank
weapons" person.
Yeff
Wow, another flame war cross-posted from ad-ru. Who
would have guessed.
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>> David, I only flew a few missions in Buff. And NO they didn't rip me apart.
That is one more of your delusions.
>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
David you tried this same old shit 4 years ago. Unlike you MY service was
HONRABLE under HONORABLE conditions. Too bad YOU cnanot say the same.
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>
>>> David, I only flew a few missions in Buff. And NO they didn't rip me apart.
>That is one more of your delusions.
>
>>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
>
> David you tried this same old shit 4 years ago.
Really? Produce a post I made, anywhere, four years ago.
Unlike you MY service was
>HONRABLE under HONORABLE conditions. Too bad YOU cnanot say the same.
Yes I can. Despite the fact that you continue to make unproven claims
to the contrary.
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
David Moore, fre...@anet.com said:
>>>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
>>
>> David you tried this same old shit 4 years ago.
>
>Really? Produce a post I made, anywhere, four years ago.
Feeling brave knowing that Deja's archives have been offline David?
Uh, David, recall that just a few years ago you were posting as
libe...@mediaone.net and made the same claim?
Tell you what. Let's pick somebody neutral in here and I will send them a
JPEG scan of my discharge and you do the same, okay?
As an "HONORABLE MARINE" you should be willing to do that. Or how about our
DD-214's?
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>>>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
>>
>> David you tried this same old shit 4 years ago.
>
>Really? Produce a post I made, anywhere, four years ago.
Oh and David, don't let this slip past that YOU are posting on ADRU that you
have PROOF that I didn't serve from HUNDREDS of people on Fidonet.
So I am SURE you will honor your PROMISE that IF I can prove this you will
NEVER post on usenet again!
OR.............. Is this just some more SCUMBAG David Moore BULLSHIT????
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>
> David Moore, fre...@anet.com said:
>
>
>>>>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
>>>
>>> David you tried this same old shit 4 years ago.
>>
>>Really? Produce a post I made, anywhere, four years ago.
>
> Feeling brave knowing that Deja's archives have been offline David?
>Uh, David, recall that just a few years ago you were posting as
>libe...@mediaone.net and made the same claim?
>
> Tell you what. Let's pick somebody neutral in here and I will send them a
>JPEG scan of my discharge and you do the same, okay?
>
> As an "HONORABLE MARINE" you should be willing to do that. Or how about our
>DD-214's?
I don't see the need. You said yourself that mine was being sent to
you, and that you should be getting it no later than Monday. Why would
I need to send mine to someone else?
So, we should be seeing a posted .jpg on Tuesday....unless you were
bluffing again.
Yeff
PangK<pa...@aol.com> wrote in
soc.veterans:
> Tell you what. Let's pick somebody neutral in here and I will send them a
> JPEG scan of my discharge and you do the same, okay?
>
> As an "HONORABLE MARINE" you should be willing to do that. Or how about our
> DD-214's?
You seem to be saying something about a JPEG of your discharge
*or* your 214.
Hmmm...
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
freedom
What's more....I don't even believe they were using DD-214's at the
time when PangK claimed that he served.
Of course, he also claimed that he led the "Parachute Ski Marines" into
combat.
The sad thing is... for every one of us veterans, there are individuals
out there who like to claim that they were a part of the service, but
never were.
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
David Moore claimed:
>>>>>Ken, you never served in the Armed Forces. Quit lying.
>>>>
>> Tell you what. Let's pick somebody neutral in here and I will send them a
>>JPEG scan of my discharge and you do the same, okay?
>I don't see the need.
OF COURSE YOU DON'T DAVID!
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
The idea turn you ON boy?
freedom
The idea of you on fire?
Actually....
Yeff
soc.veterans:
> >From: Yeff ye...@spamcop.net
> >Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>
> >I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
>
> The idea turn you ON boy?
You being on fire? Yep.
-Jeff B. (pointing out the obvious to the oblivious)
freedom
Even if he were on fire, Ken would do his best to lie his was out of
it. He'd jump up and down, stomp his feet and insist that he wasn't on
fire.... that "yopu" were the one who was on fire.
Thom Lyons
wrote:
>>
>I love it.
>THOM
>formally with the 11th SAW, Altus, Oklahoma
I'm going to hop in here and lighten things up. Don't know what all
the sniping is all about below this post but I hope a few people can
get a giggle out of what hit me when I read the B-52 Dive bombers
thing.
Before I went to Nam I spent 16 miserable months at Altus AFB,
Oklahoma on a B-52 Base, so I was well aware of what these things did
or could do.
When I got to Nam they weren't carrying the Hound Dog cruise missiles,
Quail drones or Nukes but 104 750 pound "iron bombs". (By the way a
750 pound bomb weighs 835 pounds...) Bombers, all bombers, be they
B-17's or B-52 will lurch up drastically the second a bomb is released
because of the loss of weight and the planes' lift. Because of this
the B-52 has to drop its load slowly or rip its own wings off! Its
something like 12-14 seconds to drop um all (correct me if I'm wrong
52 pilots).
As a student of the Luftwaffe I have seen miles of film on the STUKAs
diving in, releasing 1 or three bombs and pulling out just in time. I
had this image of a diving B-52 releasing 104 bombs and
plowing into the ground because it took so long to drop them! I know
its straight out of silliness but I still got a chuckle out of the
thought of it. Don't mean to offend any 52 crew out there. I've got
a wee bit of time in an F model and find it to be a Nobel ole bird.
Amazing they are still flying!
Cheers
THOM
Nils K Hammer
and it put a real kink the the heavy bomber development. So the Heinkel 177
Greif, a machine on a similar scale with the B-24, went into action as a
dive bomber, hee hee.
nils
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>> >I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
>>
>> The idea turn you ON boy?
>
>You being on fire? Yep.
>
What a SAD sex life you have child.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, soc.veterans
> Because of this the B-52 has to drop its load slowly or rip its own wings
off! Its
something like 12-14 seconds to drop um all (correct me if I'm wrong 52
pilots).
By the time of the VN war Buff was a tired old airplane, even in the calmest
of skies the wings would creak and groan and make snapping sounds. I am not
sure if they made the same noises when they were new. But by 65-68 in every
ride you felt the wings would come off at any time or the plane break in two.
>As a student of the Luftwaffe I have seen miles of film on the STUKAs diving
in, releasing 1 or three bombs and pulling out just in time. I had this image
of a diving B-52 releasing 104 bombs and plowing into the ground because it
took so long to drop them!
I am not an engineer, but the impression I have is that IF you put buff into
a dive and pulled out you'd leave the wings behind.
>an to offend any 52 crew out there. I've got a wee bit of time in an F model
and find it to be a Nobel ole bird. Amazing they are still flying!
I never saw an F model. We had some G models and a few H's.
Yeff
Thom Lyons<toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in
soc.veterans:
> As a student of the Luftwaffe I have seen miles of film on the STUKAs
> diving in, releasing 1 or three bombs and pulling out just in time. I
> had this image of a diving B-52 releasing 104 bombs and
> plowing into the ground because it took so long to drop them! I know
> its straight out of silliness but I still got a chuckle out of the
> thought of it. Don't mean to offend any 52 crew out there. I've got
> a wee bit of time in an F model and find it to be a Nobel ole bird.
> Amazing they are still flying!
You read the exact meaning into it that I intended.
The flame war that followed is one that keeps getting
cross-posted over to soc.veterans from
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated. It's always the same
players.
-Jeff B.
Yeff
soc.veterans:
> >From: Yeff ye...@spamcop.net
What a weird WAY you have with capitalization.
Anyway, I'm done playing with my food:
[BANG!]
He was an ass-half. Not even good enough to be
an asshole. Should've just hit him with the car
and saved the bullet.
Gerald Moore
else should too! Could anyone help find some relative bearing grease?
I've got some relatives that need their bearings greased.
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>> What a SAD sex life you have child.
>What a weird WAY you have with capitalization.
>
>Anyway, I'm done playing with my food:
No shortage of narcicism in your family tree.
Yeff
soc.veterans:
> too bad, this area should be where vets from all wars can come
> together, go over old times, good and bad and help each other with
> problems.
>
> Down here in Australia in the twice a year Vets Parades and National
> Days (Nov 11 and April 26th), you don't march as Viet Nam vet or a WW2
> vet but with your unit and some units spanned decades though most
> don't. Allied forces (like us Yankee persons) march together at the
> tail of the 3 hour long parades to the Shrine of Rememberence erected
> in 1923. The Embassy usually sends a color guard with one officers to
> carry the American and Australian flags because most of us are duel
> citizens. This past parade we had to get one of the historic military
> vehical clubs to provide us a weapons carrier for two of our WW2 vets
> who are finally feeling their age but the rest marched briskly and
> proudly. These clubs provide many vehicals for aging veterans from
> all countries and services.
>
> You will also see children marching wearing their late fathers' or
> grandfathers' medals so that their memories and deeds are not
> forgotten. Someday I would hope that the entire parade is all
> children with no more war veterans and no more wars but I won't see it
> in mylife time.
Thanks for bringing that up. Over on alt.folklore.military,
where we've got a world-wide audience, we try to take not of
the special military events around the world, including Poppy Day.
We do have a poster who's currently active in the RAAF online as
well as guys from Britain and Canada. We all gather in Club 404
(a virtual club, not really there unless you've ever served) and
toast those who came before, those that'll come after, and everyone
who's ever honorably served.
soc.veterans tends to revolve around mainly Americans who've served.
Don Thompson
it was capable of carrying ??
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie(BushBug)
ACA#3460
TLCB#335
Any Time, Any Place
Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.
"Thom Lyons" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:39877811...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On 01 Aug 2000 01:26:27 GMT, pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>
>
>
> We had the E's and F's not the newer G's and H's. The wings had
> almost 12' flex! They would take off with the tip-wheels solid on the
> ground and when they returned with tip tanks empty those wheels were
> 5' or more off the ground!!
>
> The first time they let me take the yoke of one I did a gentle turn
> and I sware it took 5 seconds for the turn to work its way down the
> wings and rotate the body! Freaky!! :-)
> >
>
> > I am not an engineer, but the impression I have is that IF you put buff
into
> >a dive and pulled out you'd leave the wings behind.
>
> Amen to that!
> >
>
> > I never saw an F model. We had some G models and a few H's.
>
> The easiest way to tell the difference in the old photos was that the
> E's and F's had an almost pointed tail and the G's and H's had the
> chop-tail.
>
> Cheers
> THOM
> >
> >
>
Thom Lyons
The only one like that that actually pulled it off is considered the
best all around plane of the second WW, the Junkers JU-88.
The HE-177 was a good airplane but it had those damned DB-810 coupled
engines which liked to catch fire. Idiot Goering wanted that diving
thing and they needed two engines in one cowling to pull that off and
Britain was spared a good hiding from a large German strategic bomber.
Not that they weren't used though. The Luftwaffe went back to
daylight bombing with the "Beadecker" series of raids and the material
I have read says that the RAF was never able to shoot down a single
HE-177 on this raids. They were over their targets at 435mph's!!!
They had a 325mph normal speed but they massed over France at high
altitude then went into a shallow 5 degree "dive" and were at 435mph
when they got there.
They started to produce the HE-277 which was a standard 177 with 4
separate engines. A bit slower but still a good bird. I don't
believe any survived the war and they were scrapped for their
aluminium with the 177's when the Luftwaffe just didn't have the fuel
for a trategic force any more.
A similar bird, the HE-274, with the same body and wings as the 277
but with a different tail, survived and all examples were captured by
the french (they were made in occupied France). I have seen film of
it flying in French livery.
The ME-264 intercontinential bomber (the B-29 was copied from it)
never got any kind of numbers to become operational other than
experimently. It looked like a 29 with a B-24 tail and could easily
reach NY city and back and did on a few test occassions as did their
6-engine BV's and JU-390's These things did standing patrols of NY/NJ
waiting for shipping.
The 390, 290 and 264 were not made to the dive bomber specs but they
were too little too late.
All this is a good example of not letting politicians runs wars! BUT
the Fuhrer knows best! (thank god).
Cheers and thanks WW2 vets
THOM
>
>
Thom Lyons
>You read the exact meaning into it that I intended.
>The flame war that followed is one that keeps getting
>cross-posted over to soc.veterans from
>alt.dads-rights.unmoderated. It's always the same
>players.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com
too bad, this area should be where vets from all wars can come
together, go over old times, good and bad and help each other with
problems.
Down here in Australia in the twice a year Vets Parades and National
Days (Nov 11 and April 26th), you don't march as Viet Nam vet or a WW2
vet but with your unit and some units spanned decades though most
don't. Allied forces (like us Yankee persons) march together at the
tail of the 3 hour long parades to the Shrine of Rememberence erected
in 1923. The Embassy usually sends a color guard with one officers to
carry the American and Australian flags because most of us are duel
citizens. This past parade we had to get one of the historic military
vehical clubs to provide us a weapons carrier for two of our WW2 vets
who are finally feeling their age but the rest marched briskly and
proudly. These clubs provide many vehicals for aging veterans from
all countries and services.
You will also see children marching wearing their late fathers' or
grandfathers' medals so that their memories and deeds are not
forgotten. Someday I would hope that the entire parade is all
children with no more war veterans and no more wars but I won't see it
in mylife time.
Cheers
THOM
Thom Lyons
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>The ME-264 intercontinential bomber (the B-29 was copied from it) never got
any kind of numbers to become operational other than experimently. It looked
like a 29 with a B-24 tail and could easily reach NY city and back and did on a
few test occassions as did their 6-engine BV's and JU-390's
These things did standing patrols of NY/NJ
waiting for shipping.
Funny, an old nemesis of mine from Fido showed recently. One of his MAIN
attacks on me was my comments on German intercontinental bombers. He claimed
that never had any. I also reference the Horton Brothers flying wing design, he
claimed never existed despite being shown on the History Channel.
>The 390, 290 and 264 were not made to the dive bomber specs but they
>were too little too late.
Wasn't that the story of the Luftwaffe? Always too little too late? Goering
wasn't the grand strategist he deluded himself to be, nor was Hitler. Germany
could have had the Me-262 in 1940. Hitler nixed it.
There were two other German jet fighters Hitler killed. He had stupid missions
for them, the concept of air superiority was one he didn't understand well.
They could have had long range bombers and have really screwed our morale to
fight had it not been for the combined stupidity of Hitler and Goering. The
effect that flattening New York City or Washington would have had is
incalculable. Think of New York looking like London or Berlin. Think of DC in
ruins, no White House, no Congress.
>All this is a good example of not letting politicians runs wars! BUT the
Fuhrer knows best! (thank god).
ABSOLUTELY..
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
>We had the E's and F's not the newer G's and H's. The wings had almost 12'
flex! They would take off with the tip-wheels solid on the ground and when
they returned with tip tanks empty those wheels were
5' or more off the ground!!
Did the wings in those groan and snap in flight like the G's and H's? I
have NO familiarity with the early planes. Although I heard some B models are
still flying.
It is hillarious to think that we have one case where a pilot of a 52 is
flying the SAME tail number Buff as his GREAT grandfather flew.
>The first time they let me take the yoke of one I did a gentle turn and I
sware it took 5 seconds for the turn to work its way down the wings and rotate
the body! Freaky!! :-)
The landing approach is almost 10 miles!
A turn can consume 5 miles. I was at Mather, 4343rd NTW, and we had a problem
for a while with local general aviation PLAYING with our runway for practiuce
touch and go landings. One cut a 52 off and the wake as the bomber went over
with full throtle tore the wings off the Piper. It was so much jelly at the end
of the runway. SPLAT!!!
>> I am not an engineer, but the impression I have is that IF you put buff
into a dive and pulled out you'd leave the wings behind.
>Amen to that!
The MOST damn uncomfortable plane in world history. Damn steel UNPADDED
chairs, remember those? A whole new definition to the term, "ASS TIRED." A 32
hour mission was HELL.. I wonder if they ever got better seats like the B-1 and
and B-2???
PangK
>Newsgroups: soc.veterans
> Didn't the G have a "fat body mod" to accomodate the larger iron bomb loads
it was capable of carrying ??
I don't think so. My limittaion here is that I only saw the G and H models,
and pictures of the earlier planes. I noticed a difference in those NOSE for
the electronic gear (radar ECM etc). And some slight difference in the tail.
Some G models actually had a tail gunner position.
Yeff
Don Thompson<flas...@uswest.netghost> wrote in
soc.veterans:
> Didn't the G have a "fat body mod" to accomodate the larger iron bomb loads
> it was capable of carrying ??
The "Big Belly" was a modified D model. Some G's were sent
to Guam for missions over Viet Nam but they couldn't carry
the war load that the Big Belly's could (no external carriage
of bombs was one reason).
Outwardly the Big Belly was similar to a vanilla D mod, it
was the arrangement of the internal equipment that gave it
the increased carrying capacity.
Thom Lyons
<flas...@uswest.netghost> wrote:
> Didn't the G have a "fat body mod" to accomodate the larger iron bomb loads
>it was capable of carrying ??
I'm afraid I don't know? I saw G' and the like from the air but never
got physically close to one or an H other than at an airshow or
something. I got out in 68 and left the 11th SAW in June 66 so my
knowledge is limited there.
Cheers
THOM
Phred351
>dive"
>and it put a real kink the the heavy bomber development. So the Heinkel 177
>Greif, a machine on a similar scale with the B-24, went into action as a
>dive bomber, hee hee.
Remember that the analog computer bombsight hadn't been invented yet, so dive
bombing was the only to get reasonable accuracy. The only alternative was area
bombing, and that wastes most of the bombs (and a lot of aricrews; a large
formation flying straight and level is a fat target).
I've also read that the German emphasis on tactical bombers was a result of
experience in the first world war. The British did such a good job of censoring
news of the effect of the Gotha and Zepplin raids that the Germans concluded
that heavy bombers weren't worth the effort, and concentrated on building
larger numbers of smaller bombers. The British, remembering the morale -
busting effect of those night raids, continued to develop big bombers between
the wars. The United States had a heavy bomber because the B-17 was
originally designed to patrol our long, hard-to-defend coastline. The name
"flying fortress" originally referred to this mission, not to the plane's heavy
armament, most of which was added later.
This screen name accepts _no_ email; reply in the newsgroup.
Edward Combs Jr.
pre-selected E&E areas(numbered) or landing at "Face Lift" bases.
Now the B58 did a fast climb releasing the "bomb" on a "trajectory" that
gave the B58 time to get out of the area.
.....................................
"Phred351" <phre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000811204335...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Thom Lyons
<edc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>IMHO..the B52 was made for a one way trip with crews bailing out over
>pre-selected E&E areas(numbered) or landing at "Face Lift" bases.
>Now the B58 did a fast climb releasing the "bomb" on a "trajectory" that
>gave the B58 time to get out of the area.
New one on me. When I was suffering in SAC (remember that a suck for
SAC is a blow for freedom! ) at Altus AFB we had alternate runways
that we were to go to in a war. These runways were part of the
Interstate Highway System that had 6' of concrete rather than the
usual stuff.
This was common all over and the intent was to recover the crews,
refuel and reload. Much of the Jersey Turnpike and I-70 are still
"bases" as is I-80 and I-40.
I'ed always wondered how many of the crews would be serviceable
(except the bombers that carried the HOUND DOG cruise missile) due to
radiation from their own bombs???
I saw one 58 in my day and it was in it's last days. It made a forced
landing at Altus with one engine burned out. It sat there for months
or weeks (the mind gets dusty) and was probably scrapped after it left
Altus.
Cheers
THOM
Thom Lyons
>Remember that the analog computer bombsight hadn't been invented yet, so dive
>bombing was the only to get reasonable accuracy. The only alternative was area
>bombing, and that wastes most of the bombs (and a lot of aricrews; a large
>formation flying straight and level is a fat target).
In 1943 the Luftwaffe deployed two very accurate weapons, the FX-1400
(Fritz-X) and the HS-293. Both were one bomb one hit weapons and the
293 sunk 40% of the tonage sank by the Luftwaffe.
The 293 was wire guided after the British found a way to jam the radio
and TV (in the nose) signals. It was a winged propelled missile. The
4-engined Fw-200 carried one on long range missions, two on short
range. The 4-engined JU-290 carred 2 sometimes 3 as did the HE-177.
All these AC were with KG-40. 40 also carried the 2000lb Fritz-X but
ir was mostly carried by DO-217's from KG-???. A few also carried the
HS-293, in all cases one missile or Fritz bomb to an aircraft. A
single Fritz-X was guided down the smoke stack of the Battle Ship Roma
and blew it apart. The X was wire guided by the bombadier who had a
joy stick in the AC.
>
>I've also read that the German emphasis on tactical bombers was a result of
>experience in the first world war. The British did such a good job of censoring
>news of the effect of the Gotha and Zepplin raids that the Germans concluded
>that heavy bombers weren't worth the effort, and concentrated on building
>larger numbers of smaller bombers. The British, remembering the morale -
>busting effect of those night raids, continued to develop big bombers between
>the wars. The United States had a heavy bomber because the B-17 was
>originally designed to patrol our long, hard-to-defend coastline. The name
>"flying fortress" originally referred to this mission, not to the plane's heavy
>armament, most of which was added later.
The main reason was that the Germans lacked the fuel for a strategic
air force combined with the concept that an air force is airborne
artillery. It obviously worked till they needed a strategic force
after the Battle of Britain. They were guilty of short sightedness
and lived in the fantasy that they could end the war quickly and
probably would have except for two mistakes....
1. The English Channel
2. Invading Russia
Very true of the B-17 but the B-24 was definately designed as a long
range strategic heavy load bomber which it was. The 17 was deployed
all over the Pacific to fill the role that you mentioned.
Down here in OZ, we are starting to return to flight a "Liberator"
(B-24) which was lend leased from the Americans. Theres a couple down
here plus theres one each in England and the USA that are being
rebuilt to fly. Also the "China Lake" B-29 has arrived at McConnel
AFB where it will be totally rebuilt by Boeing with volunteer labour.
Cheers
THOM
Thom Lyons
>
>Thanks for bringing that up. Over on alt.folklore.military,
>where we've got a world-wide audience, we try to take not of
>the special military events around the world, including Poppy Day.
>
>We do have a poster who's currently active in the RAAF online as
>well as guys from Britain and Canada. We all gather in Club 404
>(a virtual club, not really there unless you've ever served) and
>toast those who came before, those that'll come after, and everyone
>who's ever honorably served.
>
>soc.veterans tends to revolve around mainly Americans who've served.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com
Anyone aware of the fact that when the Russians started to have a PTSD
problem with their Afghan Vets the first ones with the hands up to go
there and help was the Viet Nam Vets with counciling experience??
Wouldn't it be interesting if the next time a madman like Sadan
Whosucks tried to start something, all the soldiers of the world just
got up and said NO!
So basically that means that if the US wants to mix it up with Iraq
again next year President Nader and Sadam will have to go find a field
someplace and duke it out one to one and leave the rest of us alone!
:-)
OR how about a law that if congress or the president wants to have a
military action, their sons/family goes first?
Just a silly thought
THOM
Thom Lyons
>
>If you mean like a "one world government", I'll vote for what we have
>now.
>
Not sure which part of my post your asking about but I am definately
against a OWG or the New World Order. We are not ready for that yet
as a species. If there are little green guys out there who will make
contact at one point and say "come join the Federation" then maybe it
will be needed.
I will say that maybe we need a world Bill of Rights though.
THOM