Confused, Misread, or Just Plain Stupid

[BrownAW]

Hello Gen. Wolters,
Are you related to BG Jacob Wolters namesake of Camp/Fort Wolters, Mineral Wells, Texas. Opened in 1925,The US Army's primary Helicopter training base, 9/56. Became Fort Wolters 3/66. Deactivated 1975.
I serve on the Fort Wolters Historical committee and am very interested in your possible connection. Link (fortWoltershistory.org)
Thanks
A W Brown

 

[tyrodtom]

First of all, I was going nuts trying to remember Sattahip, without actually looking for it on a map.
Secondly , I think your spelling of U-tapao may be more correct than mine. I leave out the dash.
Whilst on my second cup, I realized one can't get "bomber-ier" than the B-52. That's actually stipulated in some document of the World Court in The Hague, I think.

Actually, I think you're right, it's U Tapao. Maybe.
But Sattahip and U Tapao are two different places.
Sattahip was the Thai naval base/port where most ,if not all, of U Tapao's supplies came in at.
I was never there, but from some friends who were, they gave the impression they were very close to each other.

Thailand's role in the Vietnam war has always been downplayed, semi secret.

 

[SaparotRob]

I've been to Sattahip. I was with a friend whose son was a junior naval officer at the time.

 

[tyrodtom]

I've been to Sattahip. I was with a friend whose son was a junior naval officer at the time.

I was stationed in the Army at Wildflechen Germany, my room mate and one of his friends had been stationed at Sattahip in the late 60's.
They operated Army LARC's that offloaded the ships in the harbor, and took it ashore, and then by road to the airbase, evidently the dock facilities were not enough to take care of everything coming in.
A odd combination, Army men unloading ships in a harbor and delivering it to the USAF.

 

[GrauGeist]

Thailand's role in the Vietnam war has always been downplayed, semi secret.

Years ago, I had a friend who was a Royal Thai Commando.

His unit was very active in South Vietnam - some of his experiences against the NVA he shared, can't be repeated on the forum.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Okay, this has gotten a little outta hand. I apologize if I confused folks with my opening post. When I was a kid, I remember reading in book, ( and I do not remember the name of said book), that when the Invader came into production, it was called the B-26. Now, being a kid of 11 or 12 years old, I thought to myself while reading this. Why would you designate the Invader as a B-26 when you already had the Marauder as the B-26. I know that when the Marauder was done away with that Invader was redesignated B-26. But this was a couple of years after WWII. I hope this clears up my question. I may have been confused about what I read, I may have misread it, I do not recall. But it sticks in my mind like it was yesterday and has for years. Please forgive me for causing all the confusion, but all I am interested in is the time frame of it's introduction. Nothing more. And thank you to all who have posted here. I must have dreamed it I guess.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Hello Gen. Wolters,
Are you related to BG Jacob Wolters namesake of Camp/Fort Wolters, Mineral Wells, Texas. Opened in 1925,The US Army's primary Helicopter training base, 9/56. Became Fort Wolters 3/66. Deactivated 1975.
I serve on the Fort Wolters Historical committee and am very interested in your possible connection. Link (fortWoltershistory.org)
Thanks
A W Brown

Yes, a distant relative. I do not know of him, but my grandparents on my dad's side had two hard back books with all of our relatives in this country. Our name being a bit rare. His name is in the books. Other than the name, I really have no real connection to him. And you are most welcome sir.

 

[SaparotRob]

Okay, this has gotten a little outta hand. I apologize if I confused folks with my opening post. When I was a kid, I remember reading in book, ( and I do not remember the name of said book), that when the Invader came into production, it was called the B-26. Now, being a kid of 11 or 12 years old, I thought to myself while reading this. Why would you designate the Invader as a B-26 when you already had the Marauder as the B-26. I know that when the Marauder was done away with that Invader was redesignated B-26. But this was a couple of years after WWII. I hope this clears up my question. I may have been confused about what I read, I may have misread it, I do not recall. But it sticks in my mind like it was yesterday and has for years. Please forgive me for causing all the confusion, but all I am interested in is the time frame of it's introduction. Nothing more. And thank you to all who have posted here. I must have dreamed it I guess.

I remember reading similar articles but of course, not remembered clearly. I'm thinking this may have been printed in Air Classics as that was pretty much my sole source of aviation info at the time, mid 60's.

 

[BobB]

Usually these designation changes occur only when two 'conflicting' types have largely passed out of the inventory: this was the case with the Marauder and only now do we conflate the two. In-period there was no confusion since B-26 and A-26 operated concurrently as different designations. By the time that the Invader became 'B-26' there were no Marauders left in the USAF inventory.

Other examples are Northrop F-15 Reporter and McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle/Lockheed F-5 Lightning and Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter (there are others). Again, no concurrent usage so confusion only at some distance from the fact.

Someone told me the story that he and his carpool buddy stopped to look at a truck with a "For Sale" sign parked in a front yard. An old woman came out to talk to them and when she saw Delta Airlines on their shirts, she said "I worked for Delta on the F-5 mod program". Their first thought was that she was a crazy old lady but it turned out that she had worked on Lockheed F-5's when Delta ran a mod center during WW2.

 

[emu27]

"THE MARAUDER" VERSUS "THE INVADER"

By Major General John 0. Moench (August 1993)

I think it's about time the truth is known. I write this in appreciation of the fact most of the persons of the time of the decision to rename the A-26 as the B-26 have now "Gone west" or are disinclined to engage themselves in thoughtful process.

In retrospect, it was a most unfortunate quirk of history that caused the A-26 "Invader" to become the B-26 "Invader". How did this all happen? Was there a sinister plan behind the renaming --- a plot? Was it, as many have suggested, something "diabolical" --- or was it really an unfortunate event? Here is the story.

As I recall, the year was 1949. The new Air Force was still an organization not fettered with all the rules and regulations of the U.S. Army and the hierarchy was determined that it would never be so burdened. For anyone serving in today's Air Force, this resolution supporting "simplicity" may fall on very deaf ears. But, at the time, we operated mostly with blank sheets of paper to which, as needed, we applied a minimum of wordy, ironclad rules and regulations. Decisions were made by individuals --- many of them as junior as I --- and generally with minimum protocols, staff study and definition.

Following World War II, at the ripe age of twenty-four, I went directly to the Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson and took over the production control of all the United States Depots in the Continental United States and more. Then, after three years there, I found myself in charge of aircraft maintenance in Air Force Headquarters. Don't ask me how this all happened --- it just did.

In any event, we were then trying to overcome many of the problems that faced our Air Force in the growing international arena. As an example, our parachutes did not fit the Royal Air Force seats, our manufacturing systems were different, and in most cases we couldn't even service the aircraft of each other. We knew that a system of international standardization had to come about and we undertook this in the American-British-Canadian framework --- a framework that would eventually involve Australia and New Zealand --- later NATO, SEATO and more. The focal point of this activity was the contemporaries and myself. I was a Major.

One of the things that emerged in the national element of this larger standardization undertaking was a program to limit the number of aircraft designations in the United States Air Force, United States Navy and other systems. A reader might recall that we ended World War II with P=Pursuit; A=Attack; FI=Fighter Interceptor; and on and on. The decision that came from the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS)/Plans and Operations was, from then on, the Air Force would have F=Fighters; B=Bombers; etc. And the result was that, among other things, the A=Attack designation had to fall out of the system. The new Air Force was to be Fighters and Bombers. The A=Attack designation especially had to go as it implied a linking with the ground forces that had to be broken. The new Air Force was an independent arm.

The powers-to-be had no trouble converting a P-51 to an F-51 or a P-80 to an F-80. But, when it come to the A-26, there was a dilemma. To preserve the Martin B-26 "Marauder" nomenclature, following my suggestion, the initial attempt by DCS/Material was to pick up a new number, e.g., the (Douglas) A-26 (Invader) might come out as the next numbered "B" in the sixty series. But DCS/Plans and Operations did not like this as it upset the progressive numbering attached to advancing design. And the Air Material Command stated that the cost of conversion to a new number would be out of the question. As a result, with a lot of reluctance and since there was no Martin B-26 "Marauder" left in the inventory, the inexpensive solution was taken and the (Douglas) "A-26" became the B-26. I resisted the idea as long as a Major could, but I never foresaw the extent to which later confusion would arise.

The B-26/A-26, Marauder/Invader confusion did not surface immediately. But, as attention turned to the exploits of the "new" B-26 and inexperienced writers fed the media and public, one soon began to read about the "Douglas B-26 Marauder." Eventually, some writers, discovering the issue, sought to set forth the confusion as being the result of a plot concocted by Douglas and its friends in concert with the established enemies of Martin and the Marauder to absorb the combat record of the Marauder into the framework of understanding surrounding the Invader. In the case of the World War II operation of the Ninth Air Force where the B-26 and the A-26 flew side by side, the revised terminology now held it as only B-26's --- but which one? The B-26 "Marauder" or the B-26 "Invader?"

For now well over twenty years, I have been writing letters and talking to authors to try to correct the still growing view that B-26 Marauders, as an example, flew in the Korean Conflict, in Southeast Asia , and in other operations long after there was no B-26 "Marauder" in the United States Air Force inventory. Just this past month, a major author called to question a book on his desk recently written by a four-star United States Army Air Forces officer of World War II and the Korean Conflict that talked about the B-26 "Marauder" attacking the North Korean and Chinese Communist forces.

Whether the A-26/B-26 nomenclature problem will be repeated again --- who knows? Historical considerations tend to rest on persons older than those often making the historical decisions. Certainly, at the ripe age of twenty-six I never thought about making a historical argument when the redesignation process was underway. And I never heard the historical argument raised by anyone else --- and I was surrounded by a lot of very senior and older Air Force officers. So now you know!

(Reprinted from "The Marauder Thunder," newsletter of the B-26 Marauder Historical Society, August 1993.)

Editor: The four star officer mentioned was of course Jimmy Doolittle and if anyone in the World knew the difference, it was he! However, his story suffered a common fate when translated by others to book form.

 

[fannum]

This discussion has had odd twists. Let me add a few others.
About the only B-26 novel I've run across is Walter Lasly's TURN THE TIGERS LOOSE, a story of the combat crews who fought as Night Intruders in the Korean war. Senior NASM curator, Maj. Bob Mikesh was one of those pilots, and we discussed the accounts in the book, which he commended as being accurate, although the characters were obviously fiction. In the absence of other writings, it's worth the read. (Pix is of his B-26, named after wife Ramona.)
In the mid '50s, I was a CAP Cadet, while my father was attending Command and Staff School at Maxwell. There were several TB-25Js based at Gunther, which were used for the staff level students to maintain proficiency. In addition, many B-26s were assigned to Reserve and ANG units in Southern states, so were often there. We'd hang around base ops in our uniforms, and things were loose enough at the time that we could ride along, with the glass nose seats being most sought after. Most air crew were WWII/Korea vets, and if two of these bomber twins happened upon another, mock attacks, rat races, and low altitude tours of TVA valleys were often part of the required training.
Most are aware that these ANG B-26 crews became part of the CIA's Bay of Pigs fiasco.
A few years later, I was in the Navy, trained to maintain A-1 Skyraiders, and did a tour as MACV Advisor in VietNam. In '63, there was a curious attitude which limited technology in these "Limited Conflicts"... which meant NO Turbine a/c among other restrictions. Thus, the A-1 was the only plane in active service available to give to the RVN. This applied to transports and helos, thus H-21s, H-34s, C-47s, C-46s and T-6s with guns were the norm. They brought in some ANG B-26s, and gunned up T-28s but had a couple B-26 wing failures, likely due to age and fatigue. Only then did On Mark and Cavalier overhaul B-26s and F-51s into COIN (counter insurgency) combatants until the bureaucratic fiction was quietly dropped.