Shortround6
Major General
WHAT???? you mean stories told in the mess hall, hangers, latrines weren't ALL 100% TRUE historical fact??????
A-1 Skyraider vs A-26
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
soulezoo
Senior Airman
You forgot strip clubs and bars... all true my friend.WHAT???? you mean stories told in the mess hall, hangers, latrines weren't ALL 100% TRUE historical fact??????
Now about this one stripper, Chevelle, in Alaska.... talk about a two speed supercharger...
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I'm not sure what makes my head spin more, to find out all those mess hall, latrine stories aren't true or that drgondog actually used the term "True Dat"... Truly the apocalypse MUST be upon us.
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
As everyone knows, alcohol is the worlds most effective truth serum. One never lies (convincingly) when under the influence so therefor all of those stories told in bars and BBQ's MUST be true. Of course a secondary effect of alcohol is that it is also a world class means of lowering ones ability to sense deception!
buffnut453
Captain
Alcohol is a two-edged sword when it comes to truth. Yes, it can result in inadvertent disclosures of the truth...but it also makes unattractive women gorgeous.
Sorry if the above is deemed sexist but I have no experience of whether alcohol makes ugly men into Brad Pitt lookalikes.
Sorry if the above is deemed sexist but I have no experience of whether alcohol makes ugly men into Brad Pitt lookalikes.
Fighterguy
Airman
On the discussion of AIM-7's, they really did become more reliable in the latter years. Out of 37 missile kills during the Gulf War, 25 were made with the AIM-7M. One of the factors regarding missile reliability in Vietnam would be environmental conditions. The heat and humidity takes a toll. A couple good books to read in regards to USAF fighter tactics and design during this era (error), is
"Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds," and "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Both describe how the "Bomber Boys," such as Curtis Lemay, relegated fighters to anti-bomber interceptor and tactical strike only, actual dogfighting was regarded as obsolete and attempts to conduct training in aerial combat were severely dealt with.
"Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds," and "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Both describe how the "Bomber Boys," such as Curtis Lemay, relegated fighters to anti-bomber interceptor and tactical strike only, actual dogfighting was regarded as obsolete and attempts to conduct training in aerial combat were severely dealt with.
Fighterguy
Airman
Pretty sure most had guns. The Israeli's flew French made Mirage IIIC's sporting two 30mm cannons to great effect during the 1967 Six Day War. Reality was proving the missile only advocates wrong. Many of the radar systems of the time were unable to find and lock onto aircraft at BVR distances. Most air combat, even today, takes place within visual range.
All right guys, the jokes about EM club scuttlebutt and other such fairy tales are starting to wear a little thin. The anecdotes I referred to didn't come from such sources, they came from RAG squadron instructor pilots and RIOs in the course of radar intercept training. I mentioned them as anecdotal only because I didn't see them in an official publication.
Cheers,
Wes
Cheers,
Wes
Shortround6
Major General
Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions against the recommendations of both Lockheed and Allison.
US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
They had to back track on that one pretty quick.
Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.
US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
They had to back track on that one pretty quick.
Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.
Dimes to dollars the P-38 engine situation was an "old dogs, new tricks" problem. Those senior types almost certainly cut their teeth on an older generation of engines with a different set of limitations and operating procedures. Early radials didn't take well to being run "oversquare"; Allisons were tougher and could take it.Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions against the recommendations of both Lockheed and Allison.
US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.
"You have a problem with your M-16, son? Take it up with Mattel!"
Oh, and didn't Big Pharma assure the medical community that opioid pain relievers were non-addicting?
Your concrept of "selective exaggeration" seems plausible, I admit I never quite thought of it that way.
Cheers,
Wes
Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions against the recommendations of both Lockheed and Allison.
US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
They had to back track on that one pretty quick.
Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.
The USAF adopted the M-16 before the Army. I entered the Air Force in 65, qualified with the M1 carbine in basic, but as soon as got orders for SEA the next year I had to re-qualify with the M-16. The Air Force never told us the M-16 was self cleaning.
I've heard that the Army told their troops early on that the M-16 needed no cleaning but have always been skeptical about the tale.
My older brother was in the Army 51-76. And he was in Vietnam 63, 65, 67, and 71.
In the past I asked him specifically if he was told the M-16 needed no cleaning. He said he didn't recall that, but when his unit was supplied with M-16's in country in 1965 they arrived with no cleaning kits. Him and most of the other NCOs in his unit (173rd ABN) went apeshit. They had to do a quick adaptation from other cleaning kits, like a combination 22 barrel brush, and carbine barrel brush for the chamber. Not ideal, but better than nothing.
Other units might have had different reactions.
But this is just my memory of him recalling some of his memories.
I do know when I got into the Army in 69 they had certainly come full circle away from the M-16 being self cleaning.
GregP
Major
I found the ones where the teller of the tale was heroic were very suspect, but the ones where the facts were related, with no heroics other than the luck of the draw were more often than not, a bit closer to the facts that would later turn out to be the case. Not always, but a lot of the time. Most of the pilots I have spoken with who shot down planes in dogfights were after maybe one of them. Anything else was a lucky encounter, and luck could have gone either way.
While speaking with Ralph Parr, he related that most of his victories happened while going after one plane and then having to use all his skills, such as they were trying to avoid joining the victim or, sometimes just the target that didn't get even hit. His oft-repeated dogfight with many MiG at low level was, in his own words, a running attempt to avoid being shot down by every one of them, while shooting a few bursts at the MiGs as they were occasionally close to being in his gunsight as he evaded others and happened to notice the good sight picture. He didn't build himslef up at all and said he tried to learn from every flight and not do the same stupid things next time.
He had 10 victories oin Korea, and said he had a good, solid lock on maybe 3 of them. The rest were victories that happened but could easily have not been so. He figured he came close to being a victim at least 5 times in fights and another time when he broke hard after hearing a call to break, without ever seeing the MiG. He figured it was a bad call, but felt a thud and found a hole in the Sabre after landing. Apparently the shell didn't explode, but went right through. He sort of smiled and allowed that maybe he was holding his tongue just right and got lucky that time.
He said that you could have the best plan in the world, and SHOULD. But ALL battle plans go formly out the window when you encounter an enemy who isn't quite as surprised as you would like him to be. Once he starts doing the unexpected, which is usually, it dengerates into action - reaction. And the guy who gets you is definitely one of the many you didn't see coming. Therefore, the BEST setup is one on one. Any time there was more than one enemy plane, there was SOMEBODY you didn't see. The trick was not to be the one he was concentrating on, and you had nothing to do with that decision.
One of the funny things he said was that after every single fight, he found his fuel was less than he expected it to be. He wondered how the engine could be so frugal with fuel, except when you were in a fight, and then double the fuel consumption for only that time period. After a certian point in any flight, all decisions were based on fuel remaining, and he said the proper point in the flight was usually right after takeoff.
In Viet Nam, he said you'd take off, hit a tanker, check your watch and hit a tanker, hit the target and hit a tanker, and then fly home, almost out of fuel, wondering where the nearest tanker was ... if he was in a bar, his hero was the tanker's gas-passer (boom-operator).
I hear that in desert storm, the main heros were the controllers in the AWACS! Can't say, myself.
My hero in younger years was always Hugh Hefner ... or Paul Mantz, take your pick. Both had and did things all wanted. Women were cheaper than aircraft, but the planes never complained about anything much, either, and NEVER stole your credit card(s). So, while it COULD be a tossup, I'll take a Piper Cub today! It's cheaper and doesn't get mad at you just when you're having some fun.
While speaking with Ralph Parr, he related that most of his victories happened while going after one plane and then having to use all his skills, such as they were trying to avoid joining the victim or, sometimes just the target that didn't get even hit. His oft-repeated dogfight with many MiG at low level was, in his own words, a running attempt to avoid being shot down by every one of them, while shooting a few bursts at the MiGs as they were occasionally close to being in his gunsight as he evaded others and happened to notice the good sight picture. He didn't build himslef up at all and said he tried to learn from every flight and not do the same stupid things next time.
He had 10 victories oin Korea, and said he had a good, solid lock on maybe 3 of them. The rest were victories that happened but could easily have not been so. He figured he came close to being a victim at least 5 times in fights and another time when he broke hard after hearing a call to break, without ever seeing the MiG. He figured it was a bad call, but felt a thud and found a hole in the Sabre after landing. Apparently the shell didn't explode, but went right through. He sort of smiled and allowed that maybe he was holding his tongue just right and got lucky that time.
He said that you could have the best plan in the world, and SHOULD. But ALL battle plans go formly out the window when you encounter an enemy who isn't quite as surprised as you would like him to be. Once he starts doing the unexpected, which is usually, it dengerates into action - reaction. And the guy who gets you is definitely one of the many you didn't see coming. Therefore, the BEST setup is one on one. Any time there was more than one enemy plane, there was SOMEBODY you didn't see. The trick was not to be the one he was concentrating on, and you had nothing to do with that decision.
One of the funny things he said was that after every single fight, he found his fuel was less than he expected it to be. He wondered how the engine could be so frugal with fuel, except when you were in a fight, and then double the fuel consumption for only that time period. After a certian point in any flight, all decisions were based on fuel remaining, and he said the proper point in the flight was usually right after takeoff.
In Viet Nam, he said you'd take off, hit a tanker, check your watch and hit a tanker, hit the target and hit a tanker, and then fly home, almost out of fuel, wondering where the nearest tanker was ... if he was in a bar, his hero was the tanker's gas-passer (boom-operator).
I hear that in desert storm, the main heros were the controllers in the AWACS! Can't say, myself.
My hero in younger years was always Hugh Hefner ... or Paul Mantz, take your pick. Both had and did things all wanted. Women were cheaper than aircraft, but the planes never complained about anything much, either, and NEVER stole your credit card(s). So, while it COULD be a tossup, I'll take a Piper Cub today! It's cheaper and doesn't get mad at you just when you're having some fun.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #173
1. Gun-Pod Problems: Why did the pod misalign and wobble in flight? There were gun-pods and gun-packs in WWII that worked...
2. Wandering-Bullet Strike: What's that?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #175
Fascinating...
GregP
Major
Gunpods are subject to high inflight vibration. Airframe-mounted guns are not nearly to the same degree.
All stores vibrate, bar NONE, Why would you want a gun pod? There is NO reason for one.
Mount a gun or don't. A gun pod is useless ... can 't hit anything with one, but can spray an area.
All stores vibrate, bar NONE, Why would you want a gun pod? There is NO reason for one.
Mount a gun or don't. A gun pod is useless ... can 't hit anything with one, but can spray an area.
Last edited:
1. Bomb racks have shackles to hold and release the stores and braces to keep the stores from wobbling or swaying too much under flight loads as the aircraft maneuvers. Have you done any shooting? If so, you know how a tiny displacement of your rifle at the instant of firing (such as a flinch in anticipation of the recoil) can throw your bullet strike off target at a hundred yards. Now imagine trying to hold that rifle on target at ten times that range while your seat and shooting bench are tilted and twisted and subjected to varying G loads. Get the picture? Your Vulpod is going to require an absolutely rigid mount with zero flex and zero sway to rival the accuracy of an internally mounted gun. Now take a fighter jet and fly it and maintain it and bomb with it for a year in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Then hang a Vulpod that weighs as much as a bomb on one of your bomb racks. What are your chances of achieving zero flex and zero sway under all conditions of G load, airspeed, vibration, and recoil with those tired, worn bomb shackles and braces? Any ordnance grunt working the flight line can answer that question for you, even if the suits in the front office can't.
2. Should be obvious from 1. A computing gunsight calculates bullet strike with corrections for speed, G load, deflection angle, range, trajectory, and a host of other factors, but it operates on the assumption that the gun remains rigidly aligned with the centerline of the aircraft. Any flex or sway of the mount, and all bets are off. You're not aiming, you're spraying. And as for WWII gunpacks, the ones I know of were bolted to the airplane as a semi-permanent installation, not hung from bomb racks.
Cheers,
Wes
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Small world, my older brother was in the 173rd in '71 in country.
Wes,
You are absolutely correct about the gun pod versus internal mount! Gun pods are not a good answer (let's see how the USMC F-35 gunpod works out). Some lessons are re-learned again and again.
The Eagle gunsight also takes into account flex in the fuselage while under G.
Cheers,
Biff
Just what gun pods are you referring to ?
The gun pods on B-25s and B-26 were solidly fixed to the airframe. The Luftwaffe had some gun pods that hung under the wings of whatever aircraft they chose, several MG 42s, but meant for ground strafing over masses of troops and soft vehicles, not hardly considered accurate.
