dark light

dan_pub

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 489 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Mi-17 Shootdown videos wanted !!! #2641943
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Those are good clips, even if old. Unfortunate that the attributions are wrong.
    For ex, the AC-130 clip is NOT from Iraq but A-stan.

    in reply to: O-1A landing on CV-41 during Frequent Wind #2606331
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Wow excellent story, reminds me of that sad incident where the USN had to throw UH-1’s over the side because so many choppers were coming in. I was watching a docco the other night about the South Vietnamese Foregin Minister life and they showed a Huey landing in the water because there was no room on the deck. I really don’t think we’ll ever see anything like this ever again, all that good equipment going to waste, had the US been more watchful then they could have deployed some of their transport carriers in order to save some of the planes and choppers.

    IMO if they “had been more watchful” they should have sent the libs to hell and won the war, thus saving those poor Vietnamese people from decades of Stalinist tyranny, but I see your point.

    Here’s one of the helos dumped overboard.

    in reply to: O-1A landing on CV-41 during Frequent Wind #2607267
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Marking on the plane is the answer.

    Actually not.

    According to the U.S. Navy, Maj. Ly-Bung passed over the carrier a few times and dropped a note that said: “Can you move these helicopter to the other side, I can fly one hour more, we have enough time to move. Please rescue me. Maj Ly-Bung, wife and five child.”

    in reply to: O-1A landing on CV-41 during Frequent Wind #2607429
    dan_pub
    Participant

    From memory this was a South Vietnamese Pilot and his family.

    VNAF Major Ly-Bung, indeed.

    dan_pub
    Participant

    Shwishi Tiger!

    How about the Shkoshi Schwish Jewish Tiger ?

    in reply to: Rafale on Foch #2055598
    dan_pub
    Participant

    4. As pointed out already, they are/were Zephyrs, these were produced for the French Navy because the French didn’t want to buy foregin trainers for their home fleet, IIRC something like 25 were eventually built and the last retired from front line duties in 1995.

    Good call. 30 were produced, including the 2 protos.

    in reply to: The less than famous loosers…. #2631082
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Another ill-fated Martin bomber. The XB-51 lost out to the Canberra.

    Interesting configuration, though, with one jet in the tail and two in pods hanging from the front fuselage.

    in reply to: The less than famous loosers…. #2631087
    dan_pub
    Participant

    The other loser to B-47: Martin’s B-48.

    in reply to: The less than famous loosers…. #2631120
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Vought’s evolution of the Crusader.
    Lost to GD’s F-4 Phantom.

    in reply to: The less than famous loosers…. #2631149
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Convair B-46. Lost to the B-47 from Boeing.

    dan_pub
    Participant

    It is no secret that Israel has been defeated in 1973 war. Only american airlift saved it.
    USAF pilots and F-4’s had to join the battle.

    😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

    Wasn’t Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf supposed to be jailed in Iraq?
    The Comical Ali buffoon is on the loose again, or he has a twin?

    in reply to: Falklands 1982: only the RN could have done it? #2057265
    dan_pub
    Participant

    Want to check your source? I forget the exact number of British fatalities during the conflict, but it’s not a million miles away from 240.

    You are absolutely right. About 250 for the British forces.
    1000 is more like all killed, both Brits (~250) and Argies (~750). My silly mistake, thanks for pointing out.

    And as for nuking a remote Argentinian naval base… hmm… I’m not sure whether to find your comment amusing or alarming.

    That’s your problem. I sure would rather extermine the whole frigging invading nation rather than decide to get 250 of my soldiers killed. No qualms about it.
    But then again, I care about the lives of my soldiers, not about being PC or re-elected next year.

    in reply to: Falklands 1982: only the RN could have done it? #2057271
    dan_pub
    Participant

    An interesting thing about the French is that they might even have considered nuclear weapons (as a threat) if the conventional (and diplomatic) way wouldn’t have worked IMHO.

    Actually, in my opinion the interesting thing is that Maggie Thatcher did not use them. She endangered the lives of British citizens rather than eliminate the aggressors.

    With her subs and nuke-tipped missiles, she could just have nuked up some remote Argie base in Patagonia and demanded immediate withdrawal, “or else it is a major place next time, and it will go up all the way to the seat of the governement in Buenos Aires if needed to make you desist”.

    Maybe big-hearted people see thousand of PC reasons for not doing so, but what I see is that a thousand British soldiers got killed because she didn’t. I’d rather that she had elected to get the invaders killed instead. As many millions as required if they insist.

    The first duty of a government is to protect the lives of their own citizens. Which IMO was not well done by this choice.

    dan_pub
    Participant

    SR-71, (used for operational non-stop reconnaissance flights over Egypt, Israel, and Syria during the Yom Kipper War 1973/74), Operation “Giant Reach” OL-SB started on 11 October 1973 and the first mission was flown on 13 October, 1973.
    Israel thought it going to get crushed by the invading arab armies and started arming it’s nuke missiles (Jericho) That’s when the SR-71 showed up unannounced

    Those timelines aren’t right at all.
    Israel may have “thought it was going to be crushed” during the first days of Yom Kippur War –Maybe. But certainly not by the 13th of October.

    For those who would have lost track of the dates, that war started on 06-Oct-1973. It was indeed very tought during the first 3 days on the Nortern front, before the reserves arrived to the battle lines. But by the 11th, the Syrian army had been defeated and thoroughly repulsed — to beyond the pre-war positions.

    On the other side, Egypt wasn’t yet defeated by the 13th (it took another 2-3 days until the breakthrough to the canal and crossing at Deversoir), but there was never any risk that Israel “was going to be crushed” there, given the strategic depth.

    Just to cast some perspective on the accuracy of such texts as reference sources. :rolleyes: 😀

    in reply to: Falklands 1982: only the RN could have done it? #2057716
    dan_pub
    Participant

    i mean, let’s pose that the Falklands weren’t british but frenchs, germans , spanish or italians.

    Some of these navies could alone organize a re conquist expedition (successful) like british done ( with strong political willing and heavy losses )?
    The frenchs with their carriers but also not so strong first line of warships, reforgers and amphibius ships, as example?

    I am afraid all the replies so far ignore the essential point: Only the British leader of that time had the balls to do it.

    Like Maggie or not, she was in a class of her own.
    Not a chance in hell that the French, German or whatever other European head of state would launch a re-conquest task force to the other side of the world. Waaaayyy not enough balls in the leader, or in the parliament.

    AFAICS, in a hypothetical similar situation only the Serbs would do it, assuming that they’d ever have the military means.
    Of course they’d murder so many civilians on the way that they’d force the world to stop them, but they’d have the will. None of the others would. Probably not even Russia today.

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 489 total)