my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » How many israeli programers does it take to... (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: How many israeli programers does it take to...
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-27-1999 08:50 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
JimG

In the mid-60s, there was a documentary made for the AF called "There Is A Way". The title was a take off of the slang saying in those days, "There Ain't No Way".

That slang saying came from the Thailand-based F-105 pilots and referred to the very distinct possibility that few F-105 pilots would make it to the required 100 mission mark.

This film had much of the emotional impact of WW2 film of our B-17 and B-24 operations in Europe...where brave men went out day after day against terrible odds and did it without a whimper.

I don't know whatever happened to that film, but it would help our younger generation put the Vietnam experience in its proper context.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-27-1999 10:01 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
KP

Nice to get a response from you at last.

Aren't you wasting your time here? A person with your insight, your encylopedic grasp of modern air warfare, might be better employed elsewhere.

But, I digress.

Regards your post...

Fluid Four is a formation, not a tactic. How it is used is a tactic.

I know Fluid Four. I was trained on it. We knew its limitations at the time. Sometimes ideas get so entrenched that they take too long to get rid of. For the most part, it was the NIH syndrome that was responsible for this formation (not tactic) outliving its usefullness.

The USN did not fly Double Attack. They flew Loose Deuce. I know Double Attack. I flew it in the F-104.

What was your point in the reference to paint schemes? You lost me there. The USAF green/tan pattern was designed to mask the aircraft when seen from above. It works just as well at 15M' as at 15 feet. The underneath was painted light grey on the theory that the color would mask the aircraft when seen from below. What in the world does this have to do with 'mortars and rockets'?

Regards the boresight mode of AIM-7 employment...it was not the recommended mode. It was designed, taught, and used in the field as an expediency in close in air combat. Most WSOs would have a problem getting a lock in a high g BFM environment...it's hard to do good scope work when your head is pushed into the scope when the poge up front is pulling hard on the pole. Again, I know this because I was an instructor in the F-4 and flew my share of pit sorties with new AC's (since I'm aiming this post at you and not the rest of the readers, I won't bother explaining these terms...you do know them...right?) Go get your book out and read up on boresight max range limitations and then rethink your assertation that it was the 'recommended' firing mode.

In your reference to 'genius', 'WSO', and 'pilot-in-waiting', were you trying to imply that nav pitters were 'better' than back-seat pilots? If so, I've got some buddies that might like to discuss this with you.

Enough of this fencing with you. Let me try a different approach.

You have a wealth of knowledge...at this point who gives a **** where you got it from. You clearly want to share it. Right now, with most folks on these forums, you aren't educating people...you are alienating them.

Most simmers come here to learn something...so teach them...in language that they can understand. If something is pertinent to a sim, then it is 'need to know'. If it isn't, then it is 'nice to know'. You need to clearly say which is which.

Lastly, the sim community can always use good info. I'm one of the editors over at SimHQ.com and run the Air Combat Corner. How about putting something down on paper and sending it to me. We haven't turned anybody down yet. Pick your topic, it doesn't matter as long as it pertains to air combat. Send it to:

[email protected]

Hope to hear from you.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
unregistered

posted 10-27-1999 11:12 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy

the two Videos I have (and documentarys they contain) consist of

Thunder Over Vietnam (tape1):
-The 25 hour day (the mission of the F-105 pilots and crews, kind of memphis belleish)
-Tactical Air Power (depicts various test excersises with napalm, and the thud shooting down a target drone with its M61A1)
-US Air Forces in Vietnam (survey of the USAF aircraft in south east asia)

Mission Vietnam (tape2):
-TAC in Action 1964 (pre camouflage footage of various TAC fighters raising hell with the jungle)
-Air Power in Action 1966 (more footage of bombing runs, some B-52 action, and a little Agent Orange :-)
-The Screaming Eagles in Vietnam 1967 ( helicopter opperations, and grunt work, dont know what it's doing in an USAF short film collection)
-The United States Air Force: Combat Photography 1968 (my personal favorite of the entire collection, shows some hot and heavy ground fire action, pinpoint destruction of bridges and some nice MiG kills by F-105's)

Both videos are made by Historic Aviation, donw know if they are still around though

What supprised me is how little of the USAF made films could even be confused with borderline propoganda. Most of it was strait forward and coldly to the point.

I do wish that more video companies would release military produced videos.

Did you ever log any time in the F-105 Andy?

The instructor that I got my PPL with logged over 7,000 hours the F-104's, and even more in F-4's when he came over here as a instructor for the USAF. He flew in the West German KriegsMarine befor his USAF stint. As far as I know he's still teaching students how to change power settings with his left hand :-)


IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-28-1999 05:04 AM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom

>>He flew in the West German KriegsMarine<<

What was his name? I was F-104 instructor for the Germans and may know him.

Never flew the 105.

The USAF used to put out a monthly (or something) news movie to be shown on the AF bases at the routine Commander's Calls...I think it was called 'Air Force Now'. Not too much in the way of 'propoganda'...mostly just a broad brush current events film...and usually pretty boring unless it had lots of airplane pictures...!!

The "There Is A Way" film was very heavy on flag waving. Much emphasis on how dangerous the mission was but somehow the pilots keep going back...that sort of thing. I remember being very pumped up by it. Probably wouldn't go over too well today...very un-PC.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 10-28-1999 06:23 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy:"The "There Is A Way" film was very heavy on flag waving.[...]Probably wouldn't go over too well today...very un-PC."

You think so? One of my strongest moans with many current PC combatsims (unfortunately, even hardcore ones) is exactly the resurgent flag-waving and nationalistic/bully "our heroes vs the bad guys" attitude. Examples?

-The intro of Jane's F-15. Could easily have been inserted in the "Iron Eagle" movies.

-The intro of Falcon 4.0 (The NK pilot was smart enough to get on the Hog's tail, then suddenly became dumb enough to miss with an ideal Archer shot, and then even dumber to try barrel rolls with an incoming Winder). Also the video clip for the "Rolling Fire" campaign (The megalomaniac leader who builds monuments while his people starve etc etc....anybody dare to contrast the Statue of Liberty with some of the ghettos and slums accross the US?)

-ALL the videos and most of the missions in Fleet Command. Nuff said.

-The _outright silly, offensive and totally unprofessional_ speech in USAF ("Take that, Uncle Ho!" etc). Did I mention the flag on the box cover?

-The whole script of Jetfighter-Full Burn (I had a good laugh with that). Partially redeemed for allowing you to take both sides.

-The script and setting of Force 21. Same partial redeem as above.

-Back to Baghdad. Need I say more?

-The intro and campaign scripts in 688I. A pity that such a sim gem got spoiled by so cheesy scenarios.

-Every single one of Novalogic's products, with the glaring execption of MiG-29 (not that they got that right, but....).

-Every member of the USNF family, pre-USNF97 (thank God for user hacks ).

-IAF (how difficult would it be to allow for more flyable OPFOR planes without hacks? Or to allow the MiG-29 without multiplayer? Or to create Syrian/Egyptian campaigns? Or....)

-Probably the most bitter pill: the cancellation of the PROMISED MiG-29 add-on for F4.0, in favor of the "woo-haa" F-15E. I guess that all of us who were waiting to enjoy truly _dissimilar_ H2H campaigns (not a bunch of US hardware against another bunch of the same stuff) can shut up and return to Falcon 3 (+ "MiG-29 Deadly Adversary") to do battle.......progress, huh?


It seems that the notion of "equal treatment" (no relation whatsoever to "political correctness") has been lost in the marketing hype, pushed over and reserved only for WW2 sims and truly hardcore wargames (Steel Panthers, Harpoon, Fighting Steel etc).

Opinions?

[This message has been edited by Akulashaker (edited 10-28-1999).]


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 10-28-1999 06:51 AM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy/Major Tom, I did tape the "Thunderchief" show that was on Discovery/Wings a few years back as well as the recent "Suicide Missions", about the F-105F/Gs. Many of the pilots interviewed were straight forward with their criticisms of the Johnson/McNamara admin. I remember one of them, who was apparently still bitter, saying that Johnson supposedly said "Them boys over there can't even bomb and outhouse without me telling them to". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that these guys flew some of the most courageous and dangerous missions ever by combat pilots. Maybe that's why I am a little ticked at Pixel...they weren't there (and of course neither was I), and I feel the sim makes light of some of the ultimate sacrafices of some heroic men who fought in a war 30+ years ago. But then again, if Pixel had made the Vietnam/Rolling Thunder campaign realistic, a lot of us would get shot down flying Thuds and most folks probably would take it back or switch to flying F-16s.
Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 10-28-1999 06:56 AM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here's a site that has some Thud videos: http://www.aviationvideo.com/vietnam.html
Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 10-28-1999 06:58 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I saw a documentary recently on the Thud as you Yanks put it. Basic conclusion of the documentary was 1) The Thud could be a veritable death trap 2) To fly it the pilots had to be incredibly skilled 3) The ROE endured by all US pilots would do justice to a Monty Python sketch (BTW I mean no offence to US pilots by that remark) 4) The tactics employed frequently led to cries of What? from the US military.
In other words everything Andy Bush talked about is true, documented and should not be disputed(because the evidence supporting Andy's points is overwhelming)
There were mistakes made but personally I think the political and (also) military establishments to some extent underestimated the guile of the enemy and when they realized it were inept at adapting to the circumstances.

------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Majour Rectus
unregistered

posted 10-28-1999 09:24 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think the title of the post was insulting and out of place, its so easy to slag of a developer, but please, go ahead and get a job as one yourself, I doubt you'd have the skill, knowledge to pull it off. So take the "GAME" for what it is, if you dont like it by all means engross yourself in f4's "wonderfull" campaign if you have a SGI Onxy to run it
IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-28-1999 09:57 AM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Akulashaker

How ya doing!!

Glad to see you here.

I'm not sure I understand your post, but I certainly do agree that the radio chatter in USAF is both incredibly cheesy as well as not representative of real life.

Perhaps if more of our sims were made in Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, or Iraq we might get a more rounded scenario development and box artwork. It's an egalitarian idea but probably wouldn't sell.

I suppose many of the combat sims do tend to glorify war, but, what the heck!! That's what submarines, tanks and fighter aircraft are built for.

I think combat sims are the children's game of 'Cops and Robbers' taken to the next higher level. (I would have said 'Cowboys and Indians', but that would have got me in trouble.)

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 10-28-1999 11:12 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
JimG,
I think we saw the same documentary!

------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
FalconF1
Member
Member # 11

posted 10-28-1999 12:07 PM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy,
Its as simple as that.
You got American (mostly) programmers- so they will make a patriotic game.
Thats all.

Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 10-28-1999 12:59 PM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I hear what everyone is saying here about the political themes which leads me to something that is a forum string in itself - the HUGE game sizes.
USAF is half a gig in size! Gimme the special effects and terrain features in the game - but leave out the flashy cut scenes, intro music and rah-rah BS. Put it on a seperate CD or do make it an option if we want it installed - rather then let the gamer figure out what wav or splash file to delete. It is a waste of HD space. Games should be 'lean' not bloated with files you lose interest in after viewing or hearing it the third time.

Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
unregistered

posted 10-28-1999 01:08 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy
The name of the Instructor was Juergen Tank.

daveb
Any aircraft can be a deathtrap if not opperated correctly. A friend of mine tried to roll a Cessna 172N and wound up doing a Split-S. The THUD by all means wasn't the most manuverable aircraft ever made, it's reliability early on was down right awful. But in the end it did a job it wasn't supposed to, under misserable conditions, with ludicrous ROE put on it, and it did that job well.

The THUDs flew more often, they droped more bombs, and they droped more MiG's than any other aircraft in south east asia. And 25 of those kills where guns only.

Attrition eventually, and quite litteraly, killed the THUDs. Not any uberfighter, replacement for it, because there was no good replacement for the THUD.

I asked a F-111 pilot (who flew THUDs durring vietnam) which plane he perfered. He said he liked THUD better, because it had a solid feel to it. In actuallity the F-105 was a very controlable aircraft with a bad reputation for uncontrolability, not unlike the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol. It was vitually impossible to spin the aircraft.

In my mind the there have been 2 aircraft that where retired from USAF service without ANY good replacements up until these last few years.

The B-58
and the F-105

The BONE does everything the B-58 ever did an more

the F-15E is one aircraft that I can say with a strait face, makes the F-105 look like an...errr...un good aircraft.


IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-28-1999 02:04 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Major Tom

Sorry, I don't know Tank.

You are right about the 105. It was not a dangerous a/c to fly...the USAF doesn't fly 'dangerous' a/c.

There are several good 105 web sites...any web search will show them.

I was going to ask you about your last sentence or two...and then I realized a 'BONE' is a B-1!! Silly me, I couldn't figure out what a 'bone' was!!

:-)

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
unregistered

posted 10-28-1999 03:52 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A rather humorous story goes along with the B-1b's nickname.

Some reporter wanted to sound fancy and call the aircraft the B ONE when they first showed it off to the public. He left out the space and the nickname, BONE, stuck.

Now I wouldn't mind a B-1 simulation at all.

What was the last good bomber sim?

Megafortress?

A nice F-105 sim would do me fine though. The F-105 is an excellent aircraft to model if you want to show how aircraft technology changed throughout the Vietnam War.

How many THUDs did we lose in Vietnam? Last I read it was 350 on the books. And does anyone know how many where stationed there durring the durration the war?

I wonder if the NVA even bothered to clean up the 100+, chared metal hulks of F-105's we left on THUD ridge.

A few months ago I found a photo of a F-105F with the very humorous nickname "The Polish Glider." No one could ever accuse THUD pilots of not having a sense of humor about their situation.

Polish Glider...heh heh heh, that's messed up.


IP: Logged
Meathead
unregistered

posted 10-28-1999 04:56 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I dont get it.
IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 10-28-1999 05:25 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Seems I remember reading something like a situation where several Thuds held off a bunch of MiGs by flying real low in a continiuos circle so that the MiGs could never get on the tail of one without the others hosing the MiG. Also, I think I read that the Thud was pretty fast on the deck (watch out for the AAA). Maybe the Thuds did a little better with MiGs down at lower altitudes?

DaveB, remember the part about when they ran out of bombs and had to buy bombs back from Germany at ~$21 a bomb or pound? Some Thuds went to NVN without any bombs and got shot down 'cause McNamara was counting our sortie rates and didn't care whether they were getting shot down or not. And of course, they couldn't attack the SAM sites until they were operational and the SAMs had shot at somebody. And if they were within 5-6 miles of Hanoi or Haiphong, they couldn't be attacked at all (this was 1965-mid-1967).


Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
unregistered

posted 10-28-1999 08:19 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The THUD was good on the deck. Being a fast little SOB on the deck was what the THUD was designed for. Mach Speed penetration of Soviet airspace with a nuclear weapon in it's internal bay.

There are few aircraft even today that can rival the THUDs on the deck performence. 900 miles per hour at tree top level. The F-105's simply didn't have to deal with a large part of the things that killed sub sonic attack aircraft. It just flew so damn fast.

Flying a F-111 using THUD tactics just does not work at all. The F-105 is such a unique aircraft, it defined the Wild Weasel role. Talk about a suicide mission.

"Vampires, Sam, 11 o'clock, Take it down!"

In my mind, the F-105G should have been retired right alongside the F-4G and been updated just like the G Phantom. But, there just where not the numbers of F-105s to justify the costs of maintaining the force. And it wasn't like the USAF would ever order more THUDs from Republic.

(note they did consider re-opening the production lines after attrition turned downright nasty after time)


IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 10-29-1999 02:08 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
JimG, Yep I remember! Having watched that documentary I marvelled out how good the Thud's pilots must have been.
I hear from Major Tom and Andy that they were not dangerous aircraft :-) Fair enough but call it prejudice but I wonder how many pilots would have swapped places with Thud drivers?
Also I got the impression that your Mr McNamara was a real sob.

------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
unregistered

posted 10-29-1999 04:29 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
How many THUD drivers would have switched to another aircraft to perform the same role?

:-)

Here is my favorite quote from "the 25 hour day"

"Thunderchief pilots fly a combat mission with 4 aircraft, with a backup fighter just in case one of the 4 cant go up. Now normally the pilot of the backup aircraft is a good man, of decent moral character, but after hours of running through his preflight check list, he cant help but hope one of the other aircraft has some minor technical malfuction. A hydraulic leak, or a little something not so serious, but just enough to keep the other aircraft on the ground"

32 times they spin tested the THUD, 32 times the aircraft got out of the spin on its own.

I cant wait for Air Warrior: Vietnam


IP: Logged
kikegg
Member
Member # 520

posted 10-29-1999 05:43 AM     Profile for kikegg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I loved Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, it was my first Combat Sim. Ahh...
Posts: 38 | From: Madrid, Spain | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 10-29-1999 05:57 AM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Also I got the impression that your Mr McNamara was a real sob."
Robert McNamara was originally the CEO at Ford Motor Co. and was asked to become the Sec. of Defense by John Kennedy after he defeated Nixon in 1960. In some ways he could be considered one of the most hated men in the US. Very intelligent, but somewhat eccentric, he got off on this bean counting method of measuring a war that really had no relevance to how well the war was going. He had a very impersonal and micromanaging management style that many resented. Many mistakes were made that cost lives. There were also complaints that top military leadership in Wash. wouldn't stand up to him (I don't know if this is true). Anyhow, he stepped down in 1967, but a lot of the damage was already done. A few years back he wrote a book basically describing the mistakes that he and others had made...guess it was an attempt to make things right...I read the book..interesting..and thought it was an honorable attempt by the man, but he took some heat for it and there were those that hated him for it...rubbing salt in old wounds. Occasionally he can still be seen on TV. He was rather young when he was Sec.of Def.

Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-29-1999 07:44 AM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
JimG

I was just beginning my AF career when Mack the Knife was in power. I saw the situation from a very junior and, I'm sure, very inexperienced and immature, perspective. My father was a senior AF officer then and I heard it from his point of view also. To say the McNamara was 'disliked' by senior officers is an understatement in the extreme.

McNamara brought the term 'cost-effective' to the military. He had instituted cost-savings methods in the auto industry and tried to implement those ideas in structuring, outfitting, and operating the military. He had a loyal bunch of followers (known as the 'Whiz Kids') that he brought to the DOD.

He and his staff were a bunch of overly bright engineers who saw the world through their own narrow point of view...in this case that of slide rule engineers for whom the best solution was always the one that was the quickest, cheapest, most universal way to deal with a problem. The hands down winner in this case being the F-111. Aside from the aircraft being built by a Texas-based company (remember, this was during the Johnson administration and politics are always upper most in this kind of decision making), the F-111 design was the McNamara crowd's finest hour. The aircraft took 'cost-effectiveness' to the extreme...a 'one size fits all' machine that was going to be all things to all people. Looking back on it now, it seems silly to think that McNamara was able to push these ideas through...but only until you look at the last seven years and reflect upon what has happened.

As for the 'generals and admirals' that acquiesced to McNamara...their clones are alive and well today in the present political administration. In the AF, we at least had a service chief (Gen Fogleman)who had the integrity, character, guts...whatever you want to call it...to stand up and tell Billy-Boy to shove it.

McNamara has indeed padded his retirement income with book sales. I've watched his interviews in complete disgust as he painted a picture that only he could believe in. Here's the bottom line. Go to the Wall. There are countless names that are only there because of this man's self-centered insistence that he and only he knew how to run the DOD and the war. If any of you readers lost a father, a brother, or a friend in that conflict, look no further in your search for the reason why.

And the man continues to see himself as a patriot. Too bad he's not still in politics...he'd fit right in.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 10-29-1999 08:10 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
My guess at what Kurt Plummer is
(not meaning to discriminate him):

I think he's one of those persons who are totally and completely obsessed with something, in this case airplanes.
He spends every hour of his life in reading, hearing, seeing and talking about airplanes.
He thinks it's a sport to know as many facts and details as the human brain can possibly contain.
He thinks a woman is a painting on the nose
of a B-17.

He is, in popular terms, a GEEK or NERD.

But, ofcourse, that's just my humble opinion.

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 10-29-1999 08:39 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy: Good points on McN's legacy and horrible philosophy (I sometimes wonder how you chaps actually let that prickhead run the shop for 7 bloody years!), but you have to hand it to him on a single point: the rationalisation (streamlining) of designations in 1962. It really brought some order in the hitherto chaos of hardware designation. Some may consider it trivial, but I would disagree.....
Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 10-29-1999 08:46 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy Bush,JimG
Didn't McNamara die a couple of years back?

------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
SPOT
Member
Member # 453

posted 10-29-1999 11:19 AM     Profile for SPOT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
No he's still alive. A few years back he visited North VietNam. I believe he met General Giap. He has since said he regreted how the war turned out and knew at the time things weren't what it seemed.
I hate him and people that are like him.

[This message has been edited by SPOT (edited 10-29-1999).]


Posts: 573 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 10-29-1999 12:34 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy, excellent post. Even though this started as a Thud discussion, it moves on:

I work at an F-16 base and encounter active duty pilots occasionally (also ex-neighbor), and they will not come out and say that they despise Bill Clinton, but I am convinced that he is an issue that is adding to the pilot retention problem within the USAF. Gen Fogleman was absolutely right in his stance on the "let's make an example out of the Kobar Towers CC" incident and I was dissapointed in W. Cohen's response. Cohen is a wierd guy and somewhat reminds me of McNamara. It looks like another Vietnam era type of decline within all branches of the armed forces. Many of these pilots simply don't think we should be flying squares over Iraq daily and some even felt that we didn't belong in Kosovo/Yugo. a while back. I've seen some folk really bash Reagan & Bush while thinking Clinton is awesome (no one wants to give Alan Greenspan any of the credit), but I think there is more here at stake than having a good economy. I am convinced that the military will overcome this slump in time and fortunately we haven't lost a bunch of good folk like we did in 'Nam, but Clinton has to shoulder some of the blame. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but man do I hope that Bush or John McCain get elected so we can put some more $$ back into the military. People can say what they want about pork-barrel, but the goods have to come from some Sens'/Reps' state and the truth is that we have cut military spending too much for the agenda we are trying to follow with our troops. Increase defense spending.....it has to be done!


Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Cinders
Member
Member # 403

posted 10-29-1999 04:10 PM     Profile for Cinders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Perhaps a little late in the thread, but the Polish Glider was the mount of (then) Maj Don Kutyna. Also had 'Yankee Air Polack' under the canopy and polish eagle on red shield. I believe he was the same AF general on the Challenger investigation after it's demise.
My refs show 382 F-105 losses in SEA...321 in combat and 61 ops losses.

Posts: 112 | From: Lancaster, CA US | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 10-29-1999 09:45 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy Bush,

I've read a few of your posts about Vietnam, they are very interesting. When were you in country? Where were you based at? My father was stationed at tahn se nut ( not sure about spelling?) I know you guys never got a heroes welcome when you came back, just wanted to let ya know that I appreciate what you did.


Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-30-1999 04:46 AM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Lucky_1

During the war, the term 'in country' meant South Vietnam. I was based at Ubon Royal Thai Air Base in southeast Thailand, and I never set a foot in South Vietnam or flew any missions there.

As I have mentioned in other posts, it was a weird war. The time frame that a pilot was there determined the type of missions flown and where they were flown at. Many of the pilots stationed at bases in South Vietnam only flew Close Air Support in that country. One of the reasons for this was these aircraft could reach their targets faster than the Thailand based fighters.

We had three main F-4 bases in Thailand and most of the missions went to North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Thanks much for your post.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved