USAF General John C. Meyer (1 Viewer)

[Acheron]

So, browning around, I stumbled across USAF general John C. Meyer and his wikipedia page, which includes this excerpt:

January 3, 1973, general Meyer visited Andersen Air Base on Guam, on a morale-boosting trio after The 'Christmas Bombing' had placed heavy strains on the morale and cohesion of the B-52 bomber squadrons. In a Q&A session with crews, Meyers answers prompted such anger among the airmen, that some walked out in disgust, while other pelted the general with coke cans and furniture.

The page doesn't go into more detail, so I wonder, what the heck did he say to rile up the aircrews to such an extend? I originally came across hm via tvtropes, where it was said

General John C. "J.C." Meyer was a top-scoring fighter ace and a superb squadron leader in WWII and Korea, credited with 26 air-to-air victories and heroism for his actions over "Y-29" airfield. As the Commander-in-Chief of Strategic Air Command during the Vietnam War however, he gained a reputation as a micromanager who failed to understand the severity of North Vietnam's SAM missile threat against B-52 bombers, costing the Air Force valuable planes and pilots during Operation Linebacker II.

I assume this is related to the rather poorly-performed morale boosting?

 

[ThomasP]

The following Case Studies in Leadership may help explain what happened leading up to the behavior of the parties concerned during the 3 January 1973 incident:

I would suggest reading the relevant part of the following study 'Rise of the Fighter Generals'. It contains a somewhat impartial (though also scrubbed) background of the Linebacker 2 campaign which lead to the incident. The section pertinent to General J.C.Meyer and his part in the Linebacker 2 campaign begins on pg.198.

The second study includes a description of the 3 January 1973 incident. The most pertinent material in "Fifty Dhades of Friction" begins on pg. 28. However I would strongly suggest reading the section of background and excerpts from interviews of the air crews (beginning around pg. 18) preceding the description of the incident.

Both studies are well worth reading in their entirety if you are interested in patterns of leadership and learning curves.

 

[Barrett]

Excellent resources, ThomasP. Thank you, sharing with several colleagues.

The "crew dogs" flying B-52s were REAL cranky about SAC Omaha dictating tactics, which were largely unimaginative and therefore predictable. Additionally the "doomsday" ECM options were not allowed, lest the Soviets anticipate...doomsday.

It's a large story still worth studying because of the marginal-to-failed leadership lessons. One of my flying buds knew Meyer in the AF and asked him, "Johnny, what are you doing in SAC? You're a fighter pilot!" To which JCM replied, "That's where the stars grow."

The hero of B-52 crews was BGEN Glen Sullivan in Thailand who laid his stars and future on the line by standing up for his men. He cited the unpleasant facts, forcing SAC to allow the warfighters to more say in conduct of operations. He committed the ultimate bureaucratic sin: showing his superiors to be wrong.

Look up Marshall Michel's excellent books on Linebacker and the Eleven Days of Christmas.

 

[Acheron]

The following Case Studies in Leadership may help explain what happened leading up to the behavior of the parties concerned during the 3 January 1973 incident:

I would suggest reading the relevant part of the following study 'Rise of the Fighter Generals'. It contains a somewhat impartial (though also scrubbed) background of the Linebacker 2 campaign which lead to the incident. The section pertinent to General J.C.Meyer and his part in the Linebacker 2 campaign begins on pg.198.

The second study includes a description of the 3 January 1973 incident. The most pertinent material in "Fifty Dhades of Friction" begins on pg. 28. However I would strongly suggest reading the section of background and excerpts from interviews of the air crews (beginning around pg. 18) preceding the description of the incident.

Both studies are well worth reading in their entirety if you are interested in patterns of leadership and learning curves.

Thank you very much, sorry for answering only now, forgot to log in and answer.

Have to read through these works properly, reading about Meyer... oh boy, that wasn't just lacking people skills, that was something like anti-people skills.

 

[drgondog]

Excellent resources, ThomasP. Thank you, sharing with several colleagues.

The "crew dogs" flying B-52s were REAL cranky about SAC Omaha dictating tactics, which were largely unimaginative and therefore predictable. Additionally the "doomsday" ECM options were not allowed, lest the Soviets anticipate...doomsday.

It's a large story still worth studying because of the marginal-to-failed leadership lessons. One of my flying buds knew Meyer in the AF and asked him, "Johnny, what are you doing in SAC? You're a fighter pilot!" To which JCM replied, "That's where the stars grow."

The hero of B-52 crews was BGEN Glen Sullivan in Thailand who laid his stars and future on the line by standing up for his men. He cited the unpleasant facts, forcing SAC to allow the warfighters to more say in conduct of operations. He committed the ultimate bureaucratic sin: showing his superiors to be wrong.

Look up Marshall Michel's excellent books on Linebacker and the Eleven Days of Christmas.

Interesting Barrett. Excellent reading for me also.

In the two studies I noticed a couple of names that I became aware of just before dad left USAF for the great military-industrial complex in 1958. He definitely did Not like either Momyer pr Meyer. The root of his bias was the he felt serious irritation at their frequent lack of respect that they accorded junior officers - but oh so fawning to senior officers. On the other hand he greatly admired LeMay, even though he was not a huge fan of the rigid focus on SAC as the hammer for all peg shapes.

The primary reason he left ,was what he described as 'miasma' of politics at the Pentagon. He was not by nature a profane man, but stated that getting a star was not worth the blow jobs that often was an unstated requirement.