OBIT: Original Blue Angel pilot dies at age 86

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/blu...bit/index.html


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:57:33 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/blu...bit/index.html

"His last career was as a spokesman for NASA during the historic 1970 Apollo moon
missions."

But there was only one in 1970. Was this supposed to read "the historic 1970's
Apollo moon missions"? Even that's odd, unless it just means he didn't start the
job until 1970.

I was surprised to read that the Blue Angels disbanded to go fight in Korea. Makes
sense, of course, as they were hand-picked top pilots. But the policy changed with
Vietnam- at least I'm pretty certain I saw the Blue Angels perform several times
during the war. Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Dale

Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Nah, I heard they were scared ****less after Korea and clamored to stay out
of any future wars.

"Allan Cole" wrote in message
...
Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Nah, I heard they were scared ****less after Korea and clamored to stay
out
of any future wars.

That is an insult.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:02:02 -0700, I wrote:

I was surprised to read that the Blue Angels disbanded to go fight in Korea. Makes
sense, of course, as they were hand-picked top pilots. But the policy changed with
Vietnam- at least I'm pretty certain I saw the Blue Angels perform several times
during the war. Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Since the answer to that question is probably fairly self-evident, and I'm getting
into a nasty habit of replying to my own posts lately anyway, I'll reformulate it a
bit. Were the 1946 Blue Angels pilots the absolute best in the Navy, and so they
were considered indispensable when war broke out in Korea? If so, does that
mean that later "wartime" Blue Angels pilot selection is different? I'm trying my
best not to suggest that Blue Angels pilots during times of war are in any way
less capable than the guys they diverted from airshows to Korea

Dale

Dale wrote:

I was surprised to read that the Blue Angels disbanded to go fight in Korea. Makes
sense, of course, as they were hand-picked top pilots. But the policy changed with
Vietnam- at least I'm pretty certain I saw the Blue Angels perform several times
during the war. Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Korea was treated as an actual war - airplanes and ships broken out of
mothballs, etc.. etc..

Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:39:28 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

Dale wrote:

I was surprised to read that the Blue Angels disbanded to go fight in Korea. Makes
sense, of course, as they were hand-picked top pilots. But the policy changed with
Vietnam- at least I'm pretty certain I saw the Blue Angels perform several times
during the war. Was it decided their PR and recruiting role was more valuable than
what they could do in actual combat?

Korea was treated as an actual war - airplanes and ships broken out of
mothballs, etc.. etc..

Well, we were only five years removed from an "actual war", with many of
the same people in charge. But of course, it wasn't a war- it was a "police
action". I guess that indicates how tired we were as a nation of war after
the unpleasantness of the previous decade...

Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

It's odd if that was the attitude of the military, as it certainly seemed to
become "all consuming", pro and con, amongst the civilian population. But
if you're suggesting that we could have won had we gone all out, I don't subscribe
to that idea. At least from the standpoint of the air war, wasn't our bombing of
Vietnam of even greater magnitude than all of our bombing in WW2? I guess
Nixon glimpsed on a few occasions the only way of "winning"- using nuclear
weapons. Fortunately, he proved wiser than that.

Dale

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:12:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

It's odd if that was the attitude of the military, as it certainly seemed to
become "all consuming", pro and con, amongst the civilian population.

Not really. At least not for the first few years.

But
if you're suggesting that we could have won had we gone all out, I don't subscribe
to that idea. At least from the standpoint of the air war, wasn't our bombing of
Vietnam of even greater magnitude than all of our bombing in WW2?

In terms of tonnage perhaps, but not in terms of devastation or
effectiveness. We pulled our punches to keep China out of it, and
there were fundamental disagreements between the military high command
(particularly LeMay) and the civilians in the White House and at the
Pentagon over the proper strategy.

"Senior Col Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese Army General Staff
remarked in an interview:

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would
have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages
under Johnson and it didn’t worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare
alternative routes and facilities.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted
[Gen William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho
Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...pr01/kamps.htm

In article ,
Dale wrote:
Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

It's odd if that was the attitude of the military...

It was deliberate government policy, set in the Oval Office. LBJ was
adamantly opposed to making Vietnam an actual war -- with recruiting
drives, propaganda campaigns, bond rallies, the whole nine yards --
because that would have required political compromises that would have
derailed many of his social initiatives back home. Wars tend to do that;
he'd seen it happen under FDR.

Note, in particular, that despite all the fuss over the draft, Vietnam did
not see much mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. This was
deliberate policy: a lot of those folks were older and settled into
communities, so mobilizing them would disrupt things a lot more and bring
the war home to the voting public much more. Drafting college students
looked to have much less political impact.

(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:53:59 GMT, (Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Dale wrote:
Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

It's odd if that was the attitude of the military...

It was deliberate government policy, set in the Oval Office. LBJ was
adamantly opposed to making Vietnam an actual war -- with recruiting
drives, propaganda campaigns, bond rallies, the whole nine yards --
because that would have required political compromises that would have
derailed many of his social initiatives back home.

Ironically, though, he could have probably gotten support for an "actual
war" early on. A lot of the criticism I heard at the time (as a kid) was
centered on the fact that we hadn't declared war and gone all out to win.
I doubt he forsaw at the outset getting as bogged down in Vietman as we
did, with the consequences it would have for the Great Society. Not that
I think Vietnam lended itself very well to a military solution anyway.

Wars tend to do that; he'd seen it happen under FDR.

What social initiatives of FDR were derailed by WW2? Maybe the extension
of Social Security to Medicare and perhaps a full-blown National Health
Insurance scheme? I thought most of his social initiatives were aimed
at getting the economy back on its feet. The war did that pretty well.

Note, in particular, that despite all the fuss over the draft, Vietnam did
not see much mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. This was
deliberate policy: a lot of those folks were older and settled into
communities, so mobilizing them would disrupt things a lot more and bring
the war home to the voting public much more. Drafting college students
looked to have much less political impact.

A minor miscalulation But I'd still like to think that Johnson was as troubled
by the chant of "Hey, hey, LBJ- how many kids did you kill today?" as has been
suggested by some historians. LBJ is a fascinating figure.

(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)

That doesn't seem to be working out too well with public opinion either.

Thanks, as always, for the education.

Dale