|
Your secrets, I have them  Will trade for Leafs tix.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
The SU-27 is the sexist plane.     
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
grover posted:I'm a bit more optimistic the engineers will fix it than that author is, though. At which point it'll be how much further over budget? What is the motivation for throwing good money after bad, aside from subsidizing that useless parasitic fuckup of a company?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The F-111 and A-5 procurement processes definitely belong in the "dismal failure" category: ludicrous amounts of money spent chasing ultra-high-tech dreams that ultimately turned out to be impossible. The fact that the Navy and Air Force managed to make some sow's-ear leather purses out of them doesn't change the facts: the F-111 never flew as an interceptor, the A-5 never carried a live bomb, and they still stand as huge examples of How Not To Do It. That's entirely fair. The TFX is pretty much a textbook case of how not to procure an aircraft...and Lock-Mart is apparently using it as a template for the JSF.  Space Gopher posted:Unless you're privy to information the rest of us aren't, the wing design doesn't come into it. The problem is the distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook, which is significantly shorter than anything else (yes, even the A-4). The F-35 also uses a newer tailhook design, adapted from the F/A-18, which has a blunt face: it's easier on the cable, but not as effective at scooping the cable up from the deck. They're going to try switching to a more aggressive design, but it's still up in the air whether that will actually work. poo poo, the Canucks don't care, it's not like they'd be able to do anything with carrier capable aircraft anyway. And that's a very informative chart, thanks. Given the rumblings that have been coming from NAVAIR regarding the -C for some time, this hook issue is just going to give even more ammunition to those who are trying to get out of the program...although the political realities of the U.K. going CATOBAR instead of STOVL complicates that somewhat. Slo-Tek posted:Calling the B-17 the most successful aircraft in history doesn't mean it actually was any drat good. Interesting theory...couple of critiques: while the strategic campaign was not nearly as decisive as the propaganda at the time let on, it did severely hamper certain aspects of the German's manufacturing capacity (POL and ammo production being the most hampered, as well as production of the Type XXI U-boats). The most significant of these was probably POL, since while there weren't many German pilots left by the end of the war, many of those pilots that were left weren't able to fly due to lack of fuel. I don't know if late war supremacy would have been possible in the middle of the war since the single largest thing that enabled that supremacy was the deployment of the P-51 and extended range modifications to existing fighters. One other thing worth mentioning regarding the mis-allocation of resources is that the Germans developed heavy fighters intended to be bomber destroyers that were worse than useless once the Allies developed long range single seat escort fighters (look at what happened during Big Week). If the strategic campaign hadn't occurred, the Germans would've been able to devote more resources to single seat fighters and may have been better able to contest the skies, not to mention possibly developing more bombers instead of fighters only (if they had bombers Hitler also may not have directed the extremely costly mis-allocation of installing bombing equipment on fighters like the Me-262).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're saying the JSF procurement committee is Hitler   (I am sorry)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
The F-35 is the fighter craft that every "evil" government/organization uses in science fiction / space opera that's hugely expensive, super advanced, and gets its poo poo kicked in by the scrappy, technologically less-advanced enemy forces. Partially because of the institutional bureaucracy and arrogance of the service operating them and its government. At least that's the vibe I get from the entire JSF program  (sorry, I've been catching up on sci-fi on my shiny new Kindle and have an exciting imagination)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:At which point it'll be how much further over budget? What is the motivation for throwing good money after bad, aside from subsidizing that useless parasitic fuckup of a company? Similar to to big to fail...the buyers of the JSF all have requirements on the desired end product that make the JSF the only option available: LO in the case of the USAF (even more so given the cancellation of the Raptor), LO and (to a lesser degree) performance in the case of the Navy, and STOVL in the case of the USMC. Of course, one could make the case that these requirements are stupid given the money involved and that the available replacement options could fulfill the mission adequately for less money even if they don't meet the technical requirements (Block 60 Vipers and new build Mud Hens for the USAF, more Super Bugs for the Navy, and gently caress STOVL for the Marine Corps, buy some Super Bugs), but that's the motivation. priznat posted:So if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're saying the JSF procurement committee is Hitler hahahaha Yes. The JSF Program Office is literally Hitler. movax posted:The F-35 is the fighter craft that every "evil" government/organization uses in science fiction / space opera that's hugely expensive, super advanced, and gets its poo poo kicked in by the scrappy, technologically less-advanced enemy forces. Partially because of the institutional bureaucracy and arrogance of the service operating them and its government. Except the F-35 isn't even advanced enough to avoid getting its poo poo kicked in by the REALLY evil government's more advanced weapons Raptors, so really it is the worst of both worlds. Advanced enough to cost a bajillion dollars, but not advanced enough to at least have some performance for all the money spent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
jwoven posted:The SU-27 is the sexist plane. hence my screen name since I was 12 or something. In other news, I will no longer defend the F35. gently caress it. We should have starting drawing up our own hilarious little contraption ten years ago. My solution: license the PAK-FA from Russia and build it it Canada. (please kill me)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Except the F-35 isn't even advanced enough to avoid getting its poo poo kicked in by the REALLY evil government's more advanced weapons Raptors, so really it is the worst of both worlds. Advanced enough to cost a bajillion dollars, but not advanced enough to at least have some performance for all the money spent. Ok, maybe I've been watching too much Gundam lately. The F-35 is what the regular "evil" mooks fly, but the real bad dudes(TM) fly the limited quantity of awesome fighters (F-22s). Either way, it's going to be an embarrassment (I share your and most people in this thread's opinion). Embarrassingly over-priced, embarrassing when they'll crash/Class A mishap, embarrassing when it gets shot down by a 2-decade old SAM system or a MiG. Or a Flanker swings in, handily out maneuvers it, and sticks a PL-8 up the tailpipe or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
movax posted:Or a Flanker swings in, handily out maneuvers it, and sticks a PL-8 up the tailpipe or something. I'll put something up YOUR tailpipe 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
How to fix F35: a wkarma joint Buy lots of these (growlers) and fund next-gen jammer  Keep the legacy fighters flying/keep buying them. Clean sheet 2 new designs, a multirole naval fighter for the navy/marines to replace the -18s, a new tactical fighter for the AF, and a cheaped up, export approved f-22 that can actually talk to the rest of the fleet. Not every fighter in your fleet has to be a day-one door buster,
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Flanker posted:I'll put something up YOUR tailpipe  Well done indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Flanker posted:hence my screen name since I was 12 or something. drat I shoulda taken the name "Foxbat" back in the day! This is gonna be a god drat nightmare in Canada and might finish off the air force (or at least the concept of a manned airforce) for good. Still, I have hope. That retarded Mobile Gun System idea got kiboshed so perhaps this will get shitcanned too for something more sane. Do the Dutch/Germans have any Eurofighters they're sellin (a la Leopard 2A6s)? Note: This site is interesting if anyone is looking for Canadian military hardware info/procurement news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
Flanker posted:hence my screen name since I was 12 or something. No, no, license the Su-34 from Russia to defend your recently thawed passages (and regulate on any uppity cod fishermen). For air defence, I still stand by the idea of an upgraded BOMARC. Does it really make a difference whether you have a fighter pilot trailing a contact saying "No, really this is Canadian airspace. Hose off, eh?" versus a guy sitting on the ground in a missile bunker saying the same thing to a contact? Flanker posted:(please kill me) In cold war style, we'll send the suede and denim secret police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
priznat posted:drat I shoulda taken the name "Foxbat" back in the day! Australia too, they allocated a bunch of funds (16 billion) to buy these pieces of poo poo.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Calling the B-17 the most successful aircraft in history doesn't mean it actually was any drat good. This is pretty wrong on multiple levels. First off, saying that strategic bombing "did nothing" is terribly deceptive. That old canard usually comes about from post-war studies that show that German industrial production increased as the war went on. If the total war goods manufactured in 1940 was greater than in 1945, then bombing MUST have been ineffective, right? No. At its simplest, every single country in the world went through a huge industrial boom between 1940 and 1945 due to the wartime demand for, well, everything. Compared to the rates at which nations with comparably sized economies that weren't being bombed nearly as badly (e.g. England, Canada) increased production, German production did not increase at anything like the same rate. I forget the numbers now, but suffice it to say that if an economy is on a trajectory to expand by 10% a year and you hold them to 3% a year then you're doing pretty loving well. Second, even a cursory glance at any targeted industry shows how deep the effects of bombing were, particularly on the production coordination/transportation end of things and on the use of skilled labor. Since we're a gun forum, let's talk about guns. By 1944 you have factories that have been dispersed to multiple, smaller production centers rather than single, central facilities to mitigate the effects of bombing. This chews up a LOT of transportation resources (mostly trains) shuttling gun parts here and there between sub-contractors that could have been better used for almost anything, especially by a country as transportation hosed as Germany. You also have some VERY significant casualties among the skilled machinists etc. who are making the drat things. In some industrial centers workers suffered casualties at about the same rate as combat units. Finally, you DO have factories shut down due to the raw amount of damage they had sustained, which caused all sorts of headaches for the people involved with coordinating the economy. The flattening of the Gewehr 43 production lines at Gustlof Werke II (Buchenwald) is one of the better known examples of this in the world of firearms. They put a lot of time and effort into getting that up and running, and once it got blown the gently caress up they never could get it running again before the war ended. For an even bigger example of how production got hit, look at oil and refined gasoline production during the war - lack of gas hosed up everyone in the German military pretty badly. Third, air defense sucked up an immense quantity of resources. By the middle of 1944 the German Luftwaffe had a million men on AAA duty, most of those deployed to heavy AAA units protecting cities and industrial centers. It wouldn't have turned the tide of the war or anything, but can you imagine what the gently caress even half of that figure freed up to do frontline service would have meant? This is also totally ignoring all the effort that went into developing multi-engined interceptors that were almost universally worthless at doing anything other than being shot down (although a couple of them did have their airframes converted to pretty loving  ground attack aircraft by doing silly poo poo like mounting 75mm anti-tank cannons to them).Finally, you yourself talk about how important destroying the Luftwaffe was. The simple fact is that the Luftwaffe was destroyed in 1943 and the first half of 1944, well before the US had boots on the ground in continental Europe. ONe of the major reasons why things went as well as they did for us was the fact that we had essentially unchallenged control of the air from day one of our ground campaign. From 1943-1944 German air power over western Europe was devoted almost entirely to one thing: trying to beat back the bombers pounding their cities and factories. The large formations of four engined bombers worked wonderfully as bait to draw them out and give the escorting fighters a chance to kill them off. One of the best decisions the USAAF made during the war was when they broke with the old dogma that escorts had to stay with the bombers at all times and allowed them to chase down enemy fighters, including ones that dove for the deck and disengaged from combat. That, coupled with fighter sweeps over enemy airbases before and after missions, utterly decimated the Luftwaffe's pilot corps. By the time the logistical and tactical air campaign over France began a few months before D-Day it was a fairly rare occurrence to have fighter-bombers engaged by anything other than AAA. tl;dr - Read up on Big Week and the casualties suffered by the Luftwaffe trying to oppose the massed bomber formations and the effects of chronic fuel shortages on the German war effort. e;fb - How did I not see iyaayas's response 
Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
They're so expensive that Norway is intending to base them solely in Mid-Norway, 1600 kilometers away from the Russian border and 700 kilometers away from a well-established and well-kept base at Bodø which is awesomely placed to patrol the Norwegian Sea. Oh, and the new Minister of Defense has Lockheed's scaly cock so far down his gullet that he was even given honourable mention in a leaked US embassy cable. gently caress us all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Whoforthenwhat posted:Australia too, they allocated a bunch of funds to buy these pieces of poo poo. But enough about the FB-111.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Why was the B-29 never deployed in Europe? This came up in conversation the other day and the only think I could think of was that its operational range was clearly more needed in the Pacific theater. Also, aside from B-26 raid, were there any non B-29 mass raids on Japan?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Why was the B-29 never deployed in Europe? This came up in conversation the other day and the only think I could think of was that its operational range was clearly more needed in the Pacific theater. Yes, lots of airstrikes from carriers after the IJN was all but wiped out
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Third, air defense sucked up an immense quantity of resources. By the middle of 1944 the German Luftwaffe had a million men on AAA duty, most of those deployed to heavy AAA units protecting cities and industrial centers. It wouldn't have turned the tide of the war or anything, but can you imagine what the gently caress even half of that figure freed up to do frontline service would have meant? One tiny nitpick - I have read that a lot of the people used to man AAA guns were not fit for front line service. However I have no hard data on what percentage of these people were invalids, too old, too young, women or some other disqualifying factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:One tiny nitpick - I have read that a lot of the people used to man AAA guns were not fit for front line service. However I have no hard data on what percentage of these people were invalids, too old, too young, women or some other disqualifying factor. Manning the 88's had to be physically intensive not sure how many injured could actually man them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Why was the B-29 never deployed in Europe? This came up in conversation the other day and the only think I could think of was that its operational range was clearly more needed in the Pacific theater. BINGO. It would have been pretty much a wasted asset in Europe, and pumping them all into the Pacific allowed us to start hammering japanese cities way earlier than we would have been able to otherwise. There was also the not-inconsiderable issue of having to retrain aircrews and ground personnel who were already on the ground in England on the new platform. Remember: the first B29 raids against Japan didn't start until mid-1944, first from China and then from the Marshals. By that time you had an entire logistical apparatus set up in England for servicing B17s and B24s that, in the case of the B17, had been built up starting in 1942. It was just way easier and more efficient to send the new guys who were trained up on the new equipment somewhere else. This is also why we didn't just switch over to all B29 production - cutting B17 production in favor of the newer, bigger, shinier bomber would have meant taking a big hit to the number of aircraft that were being delivered to the USAAF, and all to replace an airframe that was still doing good work over Europe. These logistical arguments are also the basic explanation for questions like "why did the Germans keep using the Panzer IV (with heavy modifications) for the entire war instead of switching over to making all Panthers all the time." Changing out tooling and production lines is a big loving deal in peace time, and a deal of biblical proportions in wartime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Flanker posted:hence my screen name since I was 12 or something. The new Lib platform should be 1)Legalize marijuana 2)350 Su-34s instead of 65 F-35s. Literally have more Su-27 variants than the Russians do. 3)"Canada's contribution to the new NATO mission to (lovely country)?" "Oh, not much, we'll just blot out the sun with Sukhois" 
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:05
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:These logistical arguments are also the basic explanation for questions like "why did the Germans keep using the Panzer IV (with heavy modifications) for the entire war instead of switching over to making all Panthers all the time." Changing out tooling and production lines is a big loving deal in peace time, and a deal of biblical proportions in wartime. No kidding. All the alternate history SS fanboy wankfests that have the Germans suddenly producing night-vision equipped Panthers and man-portable ATGMs or whatever always ignore this little detail.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:One tiny nitpick - I have read that a lot of the people used to man AAA guns were not fit for front line service. However I have no hard data on what percentage of these people were invalids, too old, too young, women or some other disqualifying factor. This is basically untrue. The Germans did have "Flakhelfer" which were highschool aged kids that they pressed into service in flak crews, but they were generally just a year or so outside of active duty age and plenty of people that age were in the Wehrmacht. The current Pope was one of these guys, incidentally. There were no invalids on Flak crews. The job involved lots of heavy lifting and the like. Women weren't on flak crews either. There were plenty in auxiliary units, but flak crews were considered combat units and women were therefore ineligible for them. I'm not saying that the men on these crews were necessarily the creme of the crop, and I'll even go so far as to say that they would be distinctly "second line" troops in 1940 or 1942, but by the time you get into 1944 they were pretty similar to what you see in frontline units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Was anyone big into SEAD once the Lufftwaffe was effectively wiped out? I need to find a good book on the smaller bomber (B-26 and the like) operations.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Women, children and invalids may not have always served on the gun crews themselves but they did plenty of other jobs integral to AA defense like helping track bomber streams, acting as runners and so on. Incidentally I think Pope Benedict actually did work on a gun crew helping to aim it or something of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:No kidding. All the alternate history SS fanboy wankfests that have the Germans suddenly producing night-vision equipped Panthers and man-portable ATGMs or whatever always ignore this little detail. I'm pretty sure that's because the Germans actually did have some NV-equipped Panthers. Not many, but they had them, and it's not like attaching NV would take extensive modifications to a Panther. If the Germans had allocated more resources to making NV equipment (instead of some of the dead-end or questionable projects they did) it doesn't seem at all unrealistic that they could've equipped a few whole units with NVs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:it doesn't seem at all unrealistic that they could've equipped a few whole units with NVs. Which would have quickly been chewed up by Allied air cover. Edit: Well... not at night I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:I'm pretty sure that's because the Germans actually did have some NV-equipped Panthers. Not many, but they had them, and it's not like attaching NV would take extensive modifications to a Panther. If the Germans had allocated more resources to making NV equipment (instead of some of the dead-end or questionable projects they did) it doesn't seem at all unrealistic that they could've equipped a few whole units with NVs. The Germans didn't have more functional NV for the same reason the US didn't use more functional NV during the war: it was way bleeding edge tech at that time and loving expensive and difficult to manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
/\/\ Oh I know; I was just saying that it's not really related to the retooling issue, like the guy I first quoted seemed to imply. As far as 'alternate history' bullshit goes, the Germans just making more of something they already had is relatively unoffensive. Scratch Monkey posted:Edit: Well... not at night I guess. Yeah, this would be one of the big advantages of being able to operate more at night. Of course there could also be some reason beyond general funding that they didn't make more NV gear, like lack of access to enough of some chemical or something. LimburgLimbo fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:/\/\ Oh I know; I was just saying that it's not really related to the retooling issue, like the guy I first quoted seemed to imply. As far as 'alternate history' bullshit goes, the Germans just making more of something they already had is relatively unoffensive. I suspect that this was mostly due to needing to get the technology at least semi-robust and survivable in the field. I do know that they were doing experiments with infrared spotlight/optic combos as early as 1939 for AAA crews, but even there they had real problems keeping them operational. Basically the same issue that kept reflex sights off of rifles in the US military until relatively recently, despite their being around for a few decades now (well, since WW2 really, but back then it was too big to use in anything but aircraft and AAA). Hell, by today's standards those way early NV devices were fabrige-egg fragile. It's a loving miracle they were employed in combat at all. Also, the war ending didn't help matters either. Remember - the US only ever deployed NV at Iwo Jima, in the very final months of the war, and the Germans only got it mounted to their armor in early 1945 or (maybe) late 1944, depending on which sources you believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:No kidding. All the alternate history SS fanboy wankfests that have the Germans suddenly producing night-vision equipped Panthers and man-portable ATGMs or whatever always ignore this little detail. One of the NatGeo specials on manufacturing should be required viewing for those guys. Spending time on the plant floor at my old job was some of the most useful time spent, in my opinion. Learned incredible amounts about modern manufacturing techniques. Without tooling, your plant is nothing. If I recall correctly, the F-14 tooling was all ordered destroyed, making it hugely expensive and time-consuming to restart F-14 production, if so desired. I think the A-10 tooling is all gone too. Granted, during WW2, there was naturally a loving World War going on to spur industry into action, and there were no computerized systems that needed to be configured/installed/manufactured. I'd imagine all the NV gear in use was probably still being hand-assembled by engineers from the labs, not production gear. Management always wants to get stuff into the factories/production as fast as possible so their highly-skilled workers can get back to developing more cool poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
In a weird coincidence, I just finished reading the surprisingly thorough "Defense of the Reich" article on Wikipedia, which covers German air defense doctrine throughout the war. It's surprisingly thorough, despite being, well, Wikipedia. Basically, everything Cyrano said, but with one weird addition - Flak. Over 21,000 88s were built during the course of the war, most of which were used to defend German cities against bombers. 88s were decent as far as heavy AAA went for the time, but they were still hilariously ineffective, since they lacked radar guidance and proximity fuses. The Wiki quotes 88s requiring, on average, 16 thousand shells to down a single bomber. Hitler, however, required an unnecessarily large Flak presence around all cities as a boost to civilian morale, regardless of their ineffectiveness. The famous 88, meanwhile, proved to be an excellent AT platform. For much of the war, the 88 was the only gun in the German arsenal that could penetrate the frontal armor of the KV-1 and T-34 at range. If the Western Allies had shrugged halfway through the war and said "Bombing is hard, you guys!" and stopped actively prosecuting the campaign, that would have freed up thousands of 88s to be diverted to the Eastern Front, where they would have been effective against Soviet tanks and, to an extent, tactical air. Not a war winner on it's own, but it certainly would have made things a bit more difficult. Plus, building and supplying those 888s consumed massive amounts of steel and shell production that would have been better used on tanks, AT guns, and conventional artillery. So, the air campaign, in addition to grinding down the Luftwaffe, disrupting German industry, and strangling off their oil supply, forced the Germans to spend lots of resources on a counter that a) wasn't very effective and b) would have been better used in another role. It's not as important as those other factors, but it got me thinking. Does this make sense to you guys? Fake edit: Yes, I'm aware a few pages ago I argued with iyaayas that strategic bombing is usually ineffective. Different case - North Vietnam didn't have a lot of industry to destroy in the first place. EDIT: quote:I think the A-10 tooling is all gone too. This makes me unspeakably sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:I More importantly, North Vietnam didn't have much of an airforce, and certainly not one that was a credible full-time threat to USAF and USN tactical air. We operated for most of that war with the basic assumption of air superiority. Strategic bombing really shines (well, in a non-nuclear role) when it's essentially bait to lure enemy air assets up to be destroyed. Once that's done your own tactical aircraft can basically have their way with the enemy ground assets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The new Lib platform should be The biggest problem with that would be the additional cost of training and retaining that many pilots would be $ If they don't go all dickish on gun stuff I'd vote for em. priznat fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Was there ever any real purpose to Rolling Thunder other than to destroy the morale of North Vietnam (hee hee just writing that makes me snicker).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:Speaking of books, this one looks hilariously self-aggrandizing, and I plan on getting a used copy once the price comes down: It can't be "self-aggrandizing" if it was written by someone else. AJ likes to dine on combat cock. Ellis and Marafono are straight Gs. The few times I've seen him (Ellis) around Freetown, he was a humble and very cool guy. I have also not heard anything to the contrary from anyone who knows him personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
The McNamara posts will come back soon, I spent some time sorting things out with my semester starting up. In the next few chapters we'll get to the discussion of Rolling Thunder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 21:46
|
|
