The next HBO/Spielberg/Hanks WW2 miniseries is a go...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg

Ah ,I always wondered when they changed it from Corps.

1860: U.S. Army Signal Corps establised.
1907-1914: U.S. Army Signal Corps Aeronautical Division.
1914-1918: Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps.
1918-1926: U.S. Army Air Service
1926-1941: U.S. Army Air Corps
1941-1947: U.S. Army Air Forces
1947-Present: U.S. Air Force

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

1860: U.S. Army Signal Corps establised.
1907-1914: U.S. Army Signal Corps Aeronautical Division.
1914-1918: Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps.
1918-1926: U.S. Army Air Service
1926-1941: U.S. Army Air Corps
1941-1947: U.S. Army Air Forces
1947-Present: U.S. Air Force

September 18th 1947 to be exact birthday of the Air Force oddly ever since the Air Force has been having a hard time deciding what exactly it does.

I recall in 1997 two years after I enlisted that was the 50th anniversary to celebrate they changed the code for uniforms for the 2,000th time.The Air Force is the only branch
where they ask the troops for ideas and inputs on uniforms and gear and then when they look over the list they explain why everything suggested will not be permitted.They did for a week
in 1997 allow us to wear any former AF uniform so long as it displayed the correct rank at least where I was stationed at the time they did.I wore a pair of shorts because this was the standard uniform in North Africa and also in the South Pacific during WWII some officer disagreed with me so I had to go to my room and change obviously he did not appreciate my creativity being an academy grad.I notice that they never had a wear any old uniform day again.

[August]

It must bug those Air-dales to no end to be replaced by a drone controlled by some pimply faced kid sitting at a console in some bunker. "Flying high into the wild blue yonder" is becoming a virtual thing.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by August

It must bug those Air-dales to no end to be replaced by a drone controlled by some pimply faced kid sitting at a console in some bunker. "Flying high into the wild blue yonder" is becoming a virtual thing.

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.


It's sad.....I would've volunteered in a heartbeat for a job as a WW2 Fighter Pilot

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.


It's sad.....I would've volunteered in a heartbeat for a job as a WW2 Fighter Pilot

You think it is easy today? Hardly there is a lot of task saturation in a modern fighter.The cut off point was the 2nd generation jet fighters(F-86,F-80) many guys that had even flown combat in WWII just could not do the same tasks at higher speeds.


Old time combat seems romantic but it was very hard.Modern air combat (not drone) is extremely demanding trust me I have seen pilots step out of the cockpit after missions they usually look like they just went 12 rounds with Ali in his prime.

You need to speak with some Hog pilots they do things up close and personal I have a buddy that did fabrication and once saw an A-10 that had over 200 holes it many of them from AK47 rounds you don't get AK rounds from miles away.They even found a few 7.62x39mm slugs in the air frame.

It will take a while before drones take over fully they are a very long way from having the payload of a manned aircraft.


What do you mean you are not in the Air Force yet and it drives you crazy? You'll never even make it past basic training then get ready to fold your underwear and socks and follow a ton of rules.You are in for rude awakening good thing your not about to join the Marine Corps.

[Oberon]

Fly DCS: A10C, just getting the damn thing off the runway requires a degree in computer literacy. Then you've got to wrestle with the TCP to line your shot up, all the time being warbled at by the RWR because some sod in a Buk is trying to find you on his radar screen. Then, when you do fire, you have to make sure that you don't screw your laser up by holding it on too long, or that you've painted the right point otherwise your nice big laser guided bomb is going to make a hole NEXT to the T-72 you were pointing it at.
By this time the Buk operator has woken up and you have two SAMs making pretty smoke trails in the sky by your cockpit, so you have to get out of dodge, whilst avoiding every Tom, Ivan, and Mohammad with a weapon throwing lead at you, and God help you if they vector in a fast mover, you have two AIM-9s to throw but after that, well you'd better hope they are stupid enough to wander in front of your GAU-8, failing that, fly no higher than the height of the grass so they lose you in the ground clutter.

So, what about the fast movers overhead? They have it easy, right?

Errr...no... Since they're flying high, the Buk operator gets a nice picture of them once he's burnt through the ECM, then there's MiGs waiting with BVR missiles to ruin your day, you've got to constantly keep an eye on your fuel gauge because everytime you turn on the burners it just eats fuel. You've got to figure out which one of those dots on your forward radar is the swine that just shot at you, and try to return the favour.
Fortunately AWACs is around the clarify the picture a bit, and your RWR can tell you roughly what is where, but unless you're laying the beat down on the sand people that prefer to bury their MiGs rather than risk flying them, it's a tough job, and even on an easy day, try pulling a few gees in a tight turn, and having to do all of the above whilst feeling like an elephant has sat on your chest.

They make it look easy because they've been bloody well trained, but a quick mess around in a competant simulator will tell you how tricky it is, and that's without the whole motion, gee force, and dead is REALLY dead things to worry about.

I must admit, there are elements of WWII aircraft that are much harder than todays aircraft, navigation, lack of zero/zero ejector seats, a lack of knowledge about the effects of very high speed on an aircrafts controls and airframe (particularly towards the end of the war as jets became to come in), however those difficulties have been replaced by new difficulties in the modern jet age.

Try air to air refueling some time...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You'll never even make it past basic training then get ready to fold your underwear and socks and follow a ton of rules.You are in for rude awakening good thing your not about to join the Marine Corps.

I always remember my last three days before the sent me to Vietnam. Last day at NTC San Diego, I was up at 0600 and assigned to spend eight hours "policeing" the yards; picking up trash and cigarette butts all day long. The next day we were flown to Travis AFB. After a night in the barracks there we were awoken around 0900 by an airman who said "Your flight isn't until late this afternoon. Want to see the base?" We spent a hard day looking at airplanes and hangers, and mostly just lounging around.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

I'm not even in the air force yet and it drives me crazy. YOU CAN'T REPLACE HUMAN PILOTS!!!! Even jet combat from miles away is slightly annoying. I wish air combat never changed from WW2. That was the REAL flying.

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

Can you please explain to me how I am costing lives in a war by posting on Subsim?

I have the deepest respect for anyone who puts on a uniform to defend me or my country. I even respect those who do it for other countries. They fight so that we have the right to free speech. They fight so we can sleep safely in our homes at night without worrying about getting deported. I don't want romanticism. I want to serve my country. I will try to get in to fly the Hogs, but like I said, I will fly for somebody, somewhere, and at sometime. Even if that means choppers for the Army or AWACS or Cargo Planes for the Air National Guard or something.

I always have a backup plan too. I have a family with a military history. There are tons of other things I could do. If the military is out of the question, i shall be law enforcement.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Can you please explain to me how I am costing lives in a war by posting on Subsim?

That is not what I have said.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.

Imagine a situation where the human element is removed and the war is fought by droids or something similar. Replacing them is perhaps not cheap, but which is easier to sell to the public: the possibility of a financial loss on national level or the potential of losing a family member on personal level? Even if we suppose that such high tech army had somehow been acquired by a crazy dictator who doesn't have to care about the public opinion, it's still easier with the human element removed. When you run out of people, have fun waiting for about two decades for them to reproduce before you can even start training them. Whereas if you can just make more soldiers as long as you have the industrial capacity.

I for one am happy this is still just a sci-fi scenario.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.

Imagine a situation where the human element is removed and the war is fought by droids or something similar. Replacing them is perhaps not cheap, but which is easier to sell to the public: the possibility of a financial loss on national level or the potential of losing a family member on personal level? Even if we suppose that such high tech army had somehow been acquired by a crazy dictator who doesn't have to care about the public opinion, it's still easier with the human element removed. When you run out of people, have fun waiting for about two decades for them to reproduce before you can even start training them. Whereas if you can just make more soldiers as long as you have the industrial capacity.

I for one am happy this is still just a sci-fi scenario.

Somebody's been playing Black Ops 2 lately...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Romanticism aside, the "old days" had the definite advantage of having a human element more strongly included. I say it's an advantage, because as long as there is the human somewhere in there, there is the risk of someone dying. And as long as there is the risk of someone dying, someone somewhere has to weigh that risk against the possible benefits gained by winning the war. Hopefully before they start it.

I think history already has proven your views - well, naive. The feudal lords letting their peasant get slaughtered for their own fame and accumulation of land and influence, or willed the massacring of the civilian villagers over wars of desire. Torture. Lacking medical abilities. The effects of medieval weapons on the human body (modern weapons are humane compared to what some of them, or old musketeer bullets, do to flesh and bone). Feudal class letting their tin soldier armies die in Napoleonic squares, sometimes thinking of doing that as the feudal classes' legitimate "hobby".

War never was humane. Never. And it is not today. And where you save the enemy from the grim determination of your will, the buddy beside you, wearing the same colours like you, maybe must pay with his life for your "noblesse" towards the enemy. The enemy is not to be admired - he is to be wiped out. Your admiration you can stick to where the sun does not shine. that is the difference between the reality of war, and romantic daydreaming.

There is nothing noble and honourful and humane in war. And the more this is forgotten, the more war there is and the more suffering there is and the more careless war gets started, waged, tolerated. Especially the past 12 years are a lesson that should remind some of us of that old truth, I think. If it would have been remembered while there still was time, some of the wars we now have would not be there, and the others we could not avoid would have been ended with devastating defeats if not annihilation of the enemy by now. You cannot win war by playing fair and limit yourself.

I condemn all those fools thinking of war holding a humane or noble dimension. War, you do it, or you don't, but if you do it, do it without regret, without scruples and without remorse.

It would be good, however, if you are certain of your motives why you go to war, and that you make sure your standards by which you decide it. can stand the test of what lies ahead.

Fame. Glory. Honour. Noblesse. Truth. Everybody should clean his mouth with soap when thinking about war in terms like this. Kill the enemy and destroy his means, stay alive if you can and care for the guy next to you, beyond this: shut up - that's good enough. Maybe the biggest lie in the history of all mankind: the myth of the "just war". I know only wars of desire, which always are retarded and stupid, and wars of necessity, which cannot - and should not! - be avoided. Flip a coin - it is either the one or the other side. No inbetween, no little bit of both sides.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is right that - sorry - stupid attitude on war that made the French and oh so noble knights beeing massacred by English archers at the battle of Azincourt, 1415.

War is not about noblesse, romanticism and honour, but killing the enemy and destroying everything that is between you and the goal you want to achieve.

If you want romanticism, do a private duel in your spare time. But save the soldiers and pilots in real wars from your dangerous sentimentality. You could cost them their lives.

Um, actually, I'd like to express my feelings about drones.

Machines break. People don't.

That is all.

P.S. October lives in Missouri, not Tora Bora. Just clearing that up for you

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Um, actually, I'd like to express my feelings about drones.

Machines break. People don't.

You have never flown a high-G turn then with you blacking out, I suppose?