A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 3rd 21, 12:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,196
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:18:33 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:42:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:00:53 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:12:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 6:27:02 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, News 2021 wrote:

For a man of high IQ, your understanding of 'satellite images' is sadly
lacking. Perhaps you seen too many movies. Perhaps you were expecting to
see the doors they welded shut to apartment blocks.

Bear in mind, Tommy was able to discern the condition of a dirt road under a jungle canopy while peering through the open bomb bay door of a B-52 flying at 5000 feet.

So you like passing off lies like that?
Google never forgets, sparky. In https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/z8XzrNV_FwAJ, you wrote:
"I have flown over it in bombers at 5,000 ft. So shove your "pictures" since I looked at it through open bomb bay doors. "

Then you tried to follow that up with a picture from a 2019 vietnamese real estate ad claiming it proved the roads were wide open and paved - during the war. Read it here https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/1vRW0H-WAgAJ

That's the same thread where you made the claim that the north vietnamese surrendered. WE can re-read that claim he https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/4Zxd0YU-FwAJ
I did say that I crawled along the narrow shelf between the tailgunner's position
and the forward airlock with the bomb bay doors open. But you feel the need to
make that into a lie because you have never done anything like that and don't have
the slightest imagination.
I think it's pretty safe to assume you've never done anything like that either. Just like you're claim that you worked at livermore labs or nasa - because leaving experience like that off your resume is _such_ a good idea.

OF course, since you only consider the truth to be what giuliani and trump tell you are the truth, it's not surprising you would get confused over a truth, facts, and lies. Here's something you and that ass-sucking sycophant jute never seemed to understand: Every stupid claim, insidious lie, and overall demonstration of your incompetence is captured here until the day that google finally decides to shut it down. WE can prove every last little bizarre claim you subsequently deny. For someone who clams to be such a technology genius, you really haven't quite figured out this interweb thingie.

Firstly, B52's NEVER bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail since it was almost entirely in Cambodia which we were at peace with. Road improvements in your mind seem to equal a superhighway, It wasn't. Improvements were cutting away the rainforest and driving cars on the northern end over which we flew AFTER a bomb run on the SAM missile sites along the DMZ. Defoliant was dropped on on the southern end of the trail which was all the way down around Saigon and nowhere where the bomb group dropped bombs. This was almost entirely the responsibility of other fighter/bomber groups. Seeing the TRAIL was not looking down through a canopy of forest since it was in plain sight up on the DNZ. When you are a ****ing loud mouthed liar it shows in every word you write. The FACT is that North Vietnam agreed that the war was at a stalemate but after Nixon's resignation, the Democrats did not financially support South Vietnam so they did not have the wherewithall to resist the Russian and Chinese backed
North.
Tommy, you, quite simply do not know what you are talking about!

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...the-first-time
Dated 18 March 1959
U.S. B-52 bombers are diverted from their targets in South Vietnam to
attack suspected communist base camps and supply areas in Cambodia for
the first time in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Men
Operation Menu was a covert United States Strategic Air Command (SAC)
tactical bombing campaign conducted in eastern Cambodia from 18 March
1969 until 26 May 1970 as part of both the Vietnam War and the
Cambodian Civil War.


OK, what does that have to do with your claim or that buffoon that for some reason I could not see the Ho Chi Min Trail as we turned around at the DMZ? Come along little boy, explain how this has anything to do with my original statement and the lies of you and ****head?

Tommy you wrote above "Firstly, B52's NEVER bombed the Ho Chi Minh
trail since it was almost entirely in Cambodia which we were at peace
with." Which was either an outright lie or simply yet more proof that
you blather on about things about which you know nothing at all.

Which I replied to, and now you are zooming around in airplanes up on
the DMZ.

Which brings up the subject of you flying about in B-52's while
stationed at Guam. I've asked you many times what a no-account A2c was
doing flying in B-52's on combat missions and you haven't replied so
I'll be a bit more explicate.

You never flew on a B-52 combat mission and all your stories about
peeping out of bombays at 5,000 ft are simply lies. And pretty poor
ones at that. Or didn't you know that the normal bombing altitude of
the B-52's over Vietnam was 25 - 50,000 ft?

And yes, I was there and I saw B-52's dropping bombs.

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude. When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile couldn't even reach that high moron.

I told you how and why I was on B52's. If you cannot remember I can't help your dementia. Somehow you seem to think that only officers were on them. ALL of the tail gunners were enlisted men. Sorry if I made you cry.
Ads
  #12  
Old February 3rd 21, 02:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:18:33 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:42:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 5:00:53 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:12:25 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 6:27:02 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-5, News 2021 wrote:

For a man of high IQ, your understanding of 'satellite images' is sadly
lacking. Perhaps you seen too many movies. Perhaps you were expecting to
see the doors they welded shut to apartment blocks.

Bear in mind, Tommy was able to discern the condition of a dirt road under a jungle canopy while peering through the open bomb bay door of a B-52 flying at 5000 feet.

So you like passing off lies like that?
Google never forgets, sparky. In https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/z8XzrNV_FwAJ, you wrote:
"I have flown over it in bombers at 5,000 ft. So shove your "pictures" since I looked at it through open bomb bay doors. "

Then you tried to follow that up with a picture from a 2019 vietnamese real estate ad claiming it proved the roads were wide open and paved - during the war. Read it here https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/1vRW0H-WAgAJ

That's the same thread where you made the claim that the north vietnamese surrendered. WE can re-read that claim he https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicy...m/4Zxd0YU-FwAJ
I did say that I crawled along the narrow shelf between the tailgunner's position
and the forward airlock with the bomb bay doors open. But you feel the need to
make that into a lie because you have never done anything like that and don't have
the slightest imagination.
I think it's pretty safe to assume you've never done anything like that either. Just like you're claim that you worked at livermore labs or nasa - because leaving experience like that off your resume is _such_ a good idea.

OF course, since you only consider the truth to be what giuliani and trump tell you are the truth, it's not surprising you would get confused over a truth, facts, and lies. Here's something you and that ass-sucking sycophant jute never seemed to understand: Every stupid claim, insidious lie, and overall demonstration of your incompetence is captured here until the day that google finally decides to shut it down. WE can prove every last little bizarre claim you subsequently deny. For someone who clams to be such a technology genius, you really haven't quite figured out this interweb thingie.

Firstly, B52's NEVER bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail since it was almost entirely in Cambodia which we were at peace with. Road improvements in your mind seem to equal a superhighway, It wasn't. Improvements were cutting away the rainforest and driving cars on the northern end over which we flew AFTER a bomb run on the SAM missile sites along the DMZ. Defoliant was dropped on on the southern end of the trail which was all the way down around Saigon and nowhere where the bomb group dropped bombs. This was almost entirely the responsibility of other fighter/bomber groups. Seeing the TRAIL was not looking down through a canopy of forest since it was in plain sight up on the DNZ. When you are a ****ing loud mouthed liar it shows in every word you write. The FACT is that North Vietnam agreed that the war was at a stalemate but after Nixon's resignation, the Democrats did not financially support South Vietnam so they did not have the wherewithall to resist the Russian and Chinese

backed
North.
Tommy, you, quite simply do not know what you are talking about!

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...the-first-time
Dated 18 March 1959
U.S. B-52 bombers are diverted from their targets in South Vietnam to
attack suspected communist base camps and supply areas in Cambodia for
the first time in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Men
Operation Menu was a covert United States Strategic Air Command (SAC)
tactical bombing campaign conducted in eastern Cambodia from 18 March
1969 until 26 May 1970 as part of both the Vietnam War and the
Cambodian Civil War.

OK, what does that have to do with your claim or that buffoon that for some reason I could not see the Ho Chi Min Trail as we turned around at the DMZ? Come along little boy, explain how this has anything to do with my original statement and the lies of you and ****head?

Tommy you wrote above "Firstly, B52's NEVER bombed the Ho Chi Minh
trail since it was almost entirely in Cambodia which we were at peace
with." Which was either an outright lie or simply yet more proof that
you blather on about things about which you know nothing at all.

Which I replied to, and now you are zooming around in airplanes up on
the DMZ.

Which brings up the subject of you flying about in B-52's while
stationed at Guam. I've asked you many times what a no-account A2c was
doing flying in B-52's on combat missions and you haven't replied so
I'll be a bit more explicate.

You never flew on a B-52 combat mission and all your stories about
peeping out of bombays at 5,000 ft are simply lies. And pretty poor
ones at that. Or didn't you know that the normal bombing altitude of
the B-52's over Vietnam was 25 - 50,000 ft?

And yes, I was there and I saw B-52's dropping bombs.

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude. When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile couldn't even reach that high moron.Go


"We" bombed at? What's this "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Tommy the real problem isn't whether we bombed here or we bombed
there, it is whether you are a confirmed liar or simply so deluded
that you actually think that you were a hero?


I told you how and why I was on B52's. If you cannot remember I can't help your dementia. Somehow you seem to think that only officers were on them. ALL of the tail gunners were enlisted men. Sorry if I made you cry.


Nope Tommy, you have never replied to any of my questions about how
you were flying combat missions on B-52's and in fact you didn't
really answer the question this time.

But are you now telling me that you were a gunner on a B-52? Really
truly? A A2c 3 level electrical guy flying as a gunner? Tommy you are
a liar.

After all you have told us that you were a 3 level (apprentice) and
worked (tool box carrier) for an A1c, in fact you even posted his name
although I've forgotten it. And now you tell us that you really were a
gunner?

But perhaps you were a secret gunner that nobody knew about and you
masqueraded as an no account junior airman. What did you do, lurk in
phone booths and shout SHAZAM! and bingo you emerged in your flying
clothes complete with parachute.

Tommy, as I said before "you are pitiful".

What is the playground chant? "Liar, liar, pants on fire"
So from now on you will be known as "Hot Tush Tommy".

As for B-52 crew members, no some B-52's carried one enlisted man but
at the base I was at they were all officers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #13  
Old February 3rd 21, 03:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #14  
Old February 3rd 21, 03:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On 2/2/2021 8:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.



https://medium.com/war-is-boring/lis...i-48d09274bcdc


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #15  
Old February 3rd 21, 03:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.


When I was stationed in N. Thailand the F-105's equipped with missiles
were flying over N. Vietnam apparently hammering missile sites in
support of B-52's raids.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #16  
Old February 3rd 21, 03:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 9:35:08 p.m. UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.

When I was stationed in N. Thailand the F-105's equipped with missiles
were flying over N. Vietnam apparently hammering missile sites in
support of B-52's raids.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Wild Weasels?

Cheers
  #17  
Old February 3rd 21, 03:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.


As for B-52 models I think that they were B-52D's and maybe F's. At
least in the early '60's the ones from Barksdale AFB were B-52F models
if I remember correctly.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #18  
Old February 3rd 21, 07:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 18:38:02 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 9:35:08 p.m. UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.

I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.

When I was stationed in N. Thailand the F-105's equipped with missiles
were flying over N. Vietnam apparently hammering missile sites in
support of B-52's raids.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Wild Weasels?

Cheers


Yup, that's what they were called although to be honest that sort of
thing is very much the sort of thing that young pilots talk about. I
never heard any of the ground grunts use the term :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #19  
Old February 3rd 21, 08:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:58:26 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.


I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.


As for B-52 models I think that they were B-52D's and maybe F's. At
least in the early '60's the ones from Barksdale AFB were B-52F models
if I remember correctly.


Thanks. There was probably considerable overlap between B-52 models
in service with various suffixes being in service at the same time. A
2,700 ft difference in ceiling altitude is only a 10% difference in
SAM range since all the various B-52 models were operating around
30,000 ft.

However, between researching the topic and writing this reply, I
realized that I wasn't considering slant range and mountain heights. I
read that the North Vietnamese tried to locate their SAM sites on
hills and mountains. My guess(tm) is that had something to do with
the ultimate range of the SAM missile or maybe shorten the flight
time. It would be a rare day when the B-52 bombers flew directly
overhead for the missiles to have the shortest range. More likely,
there was horizontal range involved. 30,000 ft is about 5.7 miles. If
the SAM launch sites were 5.7 miles away, the flight path of the
missile would be 1.4 times longer. My guess(tm) is that the missile
maximum firing altitude was based on the burn time of the rocket and
unlike the bomber, had nothing to do with insufficient air for the
engines at high altitudes.

Is missile "firing range" and "firing altitude" are the same thing?
The article at:
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
seems to use these terms interchangeably. Or, are they the horizontal
or vertical components of the ultimate range of the missile based on
rocket burn time? This has no major effect on whether a SAM can shoot
down a B-52, but does shorten the range at which it might be
accomplished.




--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #20  
Old February 3rd 21, 09:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 23:18:31 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:58:26 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:06:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:47:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

There were NO Airforce personnel around where the B52's were dropping
bombs so why are you lying yet again? There were NO Air bases anywhere
near front lines. Also you haven't a clue about the bombing altitude.
When you're stupid you should stop showing it so plainly. There was
a river valley on the 17th parallel and The SAM sites were in that
Valley. Give us some more of your stupid bull**** about what altitude
we bombed from when a B52 was supposed to drop nuclear weapons from
those altitudes and didn't need pinpoint accuracy. A SAM missile
couldn't even reach that high moron.

I don't have a number for the Vietnam Ware era B-52F ceiling. The
earlier B-52B ceiling was 47,300 ft while the later B-52H ceiling was
50,000 ft. Bombing altitude seems to have been around 30,000 ft.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/b-52-bomber/#/technical-specifications

Various V-750 / SA-2 SAM missiles and systems in use had maximum
altitudes of 23,000 meters (75,400 ft) to 35,000 meters (114,000 ft).
I can't tell which V-750 version was in use in Vietnam, but my
guess(tm) is the early ones went to at least 25,000 meters (82,000
ft):
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
It scored the first destruction of an enemy aircraft
by a surface-to-air missile, shooting down a Taiwanese
Martin RB-57D Canberra over China, on October 7, 1959,
hitting it with three V-750 (1D) missiles at an altitude
of 20 km (65,600 ft).

A missile with a maximum altitude of 82,000 ft should have no trouble
hitting an airplane with a ceiling between 47,300 and 50,000 ft.


As for B-52 models I think that they were B-52D's and maybe F's. At
least in the early '60's the ones from Barksdale AFB were B-52F models
if I remember correctly.


Thanks. There was probably considerable overlap between B-52 models
in service with various suffixes being in service at the same time. A
2,700 ft difference in ceiling altitude is only a 10% difference in
SAM range since all the various B-52 models were operating around
30,000 ft.

However, between researching the topic and writing this reply, I
realized that I wasn't considering slant range and mountain heights. I
read that the North Vietnamese tried to locate their SAM sites on
hills and mountains. My guess(tm) is that had something to do with
the ultimate range of the SAM missile or maybe shorten the flight
time. It would be a rare day when the B-52 bombers flew directly
overhead for the missiles to have the shortest range. More likely,
there was horizontal range involved. 30,000 ft is about 5.7 miles. If
the SAM launch sites were 5.7 miles away, the flight path of the
missile would be 1.4 times longer. My guess(tm) is that the missile
maximum firing altitude was based on the burn time of the rocket and
unlike the bomber, had nothing to do with insufficient air for the
engines at high altitudes.

Is missile "firing range" and "firing altitude" are the same thing?
The article at:
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
seems to use these terms interchangeably. Or, are they the horizontal
or vertical components of the ultimate range of the missile based on
rocket burn time? This has no major effect on whether a SAM can shoot
down a B-52, but does shorten the range at which it might be
accomplished.


Well, I'm not a missile man but my understanding is that "range" means
how far away will the rocket reach, i.e. a line drawn from the launch
pad to wherever and "altitude" would mean how high the rocket could
reach, probably fired straight up.
--
Cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Facebook hiding my entries Tom Kunich[_4_] Techniques 4 January 27th 21 07:30 PM
Facebook hiding my entries Tom Kunich[_4_] Techniques 1 January 27th 21 12:05 AM
Facebook hiding my entries Radey Shouman Techniques 1 January 26th 21 06:32 PM
Alaska Dalton Highway Trip Photos on facebook captainwelch Unicycling 11 May 28th 08 07:29 AM
New Book From Tom Volinchak, Tommy Volinchak, Tommy's Tunes, Tommy Tune, Tommy Tuneman Varsik Jabloerski General 0 January 21st 04 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.