OT: Tommy on Sat photos. Facebook hiding my entries

On 2/3/2021 1:18 AM, 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.





Or the missiles are sited on high points with best radar range?

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

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 5:10:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
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..bic...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.
I wonder if anyone here knows that a B50 that you claim to have been a crew chief on had 6 or so machine gun positions all manned by enlisted men. And yet you seem to think that an enlisted man couldn't be on a B52 despite the tail gunner on a B52D was ALWAYS and enlisted man. Why don't you explain that you liar? If you were a crew chief you would have known that EVEN if the guns were taken off and the B50 used as a tanker, that the boomer was ALWAYS and enlisted man. Why are you lying? Why are you telling us that you were a crew chief when you don't even know that the only officers on a B50 were the aircraft commander, the pilot, the navigator and the bomber? Now I am wondering if you even were in the Air Force after saying that you SAW a B52 dropping bombs.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 6:06:41 PM UTC-8, 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.

Jeff, why are you talking about stuff you don't know anything about? You know, I have a problem hitting the broadside of a barn from the inside with a pistol but with a Weatherby .300 magnum I can shoot a quarter out of your hand if you pinch it between your thumb and forefinger at 100 yards. And I can put 5 shots out of 10 in the black using a 100 yard target at 1000 yards with that gun. If you are unaware of it the sights completely cover that sort of target at that range. The crosshairs on a telescopic sight block out a target that small at that distance. From 25,000 Feet using the radar in those days you couldn't even see a building let alone some sort of smaller target like a SAM site. Those things were a trailer with 6 or 8 SAMs. You couldn't even see an entire BLOCK through the Norden bomb sight which is why NO bomb runs were ever run using that "backup" WW II B29 bomb sight. Please do not attempt to say one word about the bombing altitude that was used when you have never been in the service and I doubt you've ever SEEN a B52D other than pictures and have no concept of scale.

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 5:57:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/3/2021 1:18 AM, 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.




Or the missiles are sited on high points with best radar range?

They were attempting to HIDE them. We had electronic countermeasures (ECM) that effectively made the radar tracking of the SAMs worthless so they simply would turn the guidance off and set the missiles to explode at a certain altitude. They couldn't aim them because the relative speed of the aircraft and the SAM's at low altitude was too large. Remember that our wingman told us that a SAM flew in between the fuselage and the swept wing and exploded several thousand feet above us. This is why we would come in low and fast and we would always attack at a different altitude. This was in a valley. That was the complaint that we were becoming a tactical bombing fleet rather than a high altitude strategic force. A tactical force was low altitude attack.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 11:18:42 PM UTC-8, 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.

I looked it up and was surprised to see they had a service altitude of 90,000 feet. There was NOTHING they could hit at altitude because that gave the ECM that much more time to confuse the guidance system. From my memory, we would come in to the SAM sites at 5,000 feet (that historian said that we also bombed NVA gatherings with extreme effectiveness but I was only told about bombing the SAM sites. The way those SAM's worked was the base station would send a radar signal out and the SAM's would attempt to hit the returns. ECM would send confusing signals out that would tell the SAM that it had passed the target in which case it would explode so that it didn't fall on its own people or make the SAM think it was already at the target so that it would explode far short.

After our run we would pull eventually back up to 25,000 feet and then out over the ocean we would meet the KC-135 tankers, refuel and head home. That is why it was absolutely necessary to have radar - to find the KC. I don't know about today but you couldn't see **** on the radar because the normal radar was a 360 degree sweep and that covers a hell of a lot of area. This was OK for seeing cities and major land masses but not for accurate pinpoint bombing. So the tanker had a radar locator beacon. On a bomb run the radar could be switched to a 30 degree back and forth scan hopefully with the target in the center. This is why the SAM sites would always turn off their radars since that would make a bright light marking where they were. The range of the radar was controlled by how often you send a signal and the RT unit we had was pretty slow so the range was LONG which made everything tiny except we could speed it up on a bomb run and hope that the magnetron didn't burn out. The most common failure of the radar was the magnetron. This thing looked like a couple of complex horseshoe magnets with a vacuum in the center. I can't quite remember how it worked but I think that you would jump a high voltage spark between a couple of contacts and the shape of the cavity would generate a pulse of the radar frequency. These were not repairable. If you got any air in them during operation they would burn out the electrodes. If you had everything perfect they would still burn out the spark gap electrodes. During launch the RT could fail and because you NEED radar to refuel someone had to replace that RT. If the launch line was long enough I could get it replaced and working and get the hell off of the aircraft before launch. But if there wasn't enough time I had to go with the flight and get it working in flight. I didn't mind going though since I always worked night shift and the launches were all in the mornings, you had to drink a hell of a lot of coffee to stay awake. And you always had to stay wide awake in case of a failure of the aircraft. A passenger only had ONE chance to get out of the aircraft alive and that was to bail out through the hole left by the navigator and bomber when they shot out because if the AC and Pilot shot out the air draft then went in the wrong direction and you couldn't bail out. So you had about two seconds to bail.

The bombing computer was an electromechanical device that would aim the radar via longitude and latitude to two decimal places and the play in the gears would make that none too accurate. The Navigation computer was a less accurate version of the same thing. I think that the bombing computer could be set to operate the Norden bomb site but I looked through it on a bomb run and the crosshairs covered the target area even at that altitude so at high altitude it must have been useless. It managed to find the middle of Hiroshima and that is probably as good as it got.

Today the B52 H's have been entirely rebuilt and they don't drop bombs anymore but fire missiles from a safe distance out. These are guided by the military grade GPS so that they can hit within an inch of the target. And your cannot block the target with ECM because they only need to load position in the computers once to know where you are and how fast you're going. There are also orbiting hypersonic missiles that can hit a pin prick on the ground with so much energy that it turns anything and everything below it into dust whether it is concrete or hardened steel bunkers. This makes actual war impossible. So the military has to play at brushfire wars with countries with 19th century forces.

Question: Are you aware that Biden sent an invading force of Americans into Syria? This is high treason but who cares?

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 08:12:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 6:06:41 PM UTC-8, 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.

Jeff, why are you talking about stuff you don't know anything about? You know, I have a problem hitting the broadside of a barn from the inside with a pistol but with a Weatherby .300 magnum I can shoot a quarter out of your hand if you pinch it between your thumb and forefinger at 100 yards. And I can put 5 shots out of 10 in the black using a 100 yard target at 1000 yards with that gun. If you are unaware of it the sights completely cover that sort of target at that range. The crosshairs on a telescopic sight block out a target that small at that distance. From 25,000 Feet using the radar in those days you couldn't even see a building let alone some sort of smaller target like a SAM site. Those things were a trailer with 6 or 8 SAMs. You couldn't even see an entire BLOCK through the Norden bomb sight which is why NO bomb runs were ever run using that "backup" WW II B29 bomb sight. Please do not attempt to say one word about the bombing altitude that was used when you have never
been in the service and I doubt you've ever SEEN a B52D other than pictures and have no concept of scale.


Your fantasies know no bounds.

Re your fantastic skills at shooting. Please tell us more....
Certainly with your skills you must have been active in "big bore"
shooting on a national scale. What years did tou compete at Camp
Perry?

As for bombing in Vietnam? How would you know? After all you never
flew in a B-50, you were a know-nothing helper in the electrical shop.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 07:58:31 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:


I wonder if anyone here knows that a B50 that you claim to have been a
crew chief on had 6 or so machine gun positions all manned by enlisted
men. And yet you seem to think that an enlisted man couldn't be on a B52
despite the tail gunner on a B52D was ALWAYS and enlisted man.

little tommy, you have no point. You are just throwing factoids.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:49:29 PM UTC-8, News 2021 wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 07:58:31 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:
I wonder if anyone here knows that a B50 that you claim to have been a
crew chief on had 6 or so machine gun positions all manned by enlisted
men. And yet you seem to think that an enlisted man couldn't be on a B52
despite the tail gunner on a B52D was ALWAYS and enlisted man.
little tommy, you have no point. You are just throwing factoids.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Monty Python Argument Clinic, reincarnated!
Wow you guys are really going at it. Great entertainment in the middle of a busy workday, Thank you for the diversion.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:38:06 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 5:57:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/3/2021 1:18 AM, 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.




Or the missiles are sited on high points with best radar range?

They were attempting to HIDE them. We had electronic countermeasures (ECM) that effectively made the radar tracking of the SAMs worthless so they simply would turn the guidance off and set the missiles to explode at a certain altitude. They couldn't aim them because the relative speed of the aircraft and the SAM's at low altitude was too large. Remember that our wingman told us that a SAM flew in between the fuselage and the swept wing and exploded several thousand feet above us. This is why we would come in low and fast and we would always attack at a different altitude. This was in a valley. That was the complaint that we were becoming a tactical bombing fleet rather than a high altitude strategic force. A tactical force was low altitude attack.


Our wingman told us... Us, told "us"? Who is this "us" certainly not
you and a bunch of the guys, after all you never flew in a B-52.

And "our wingman"? were the B-52's flying close formation like the
fighters? After all on the very first mission two B-52's flew into
each other so I would imagine that they might have learned a lesson
from that episode and kept their distance'

Tommy boy, you have a very vivid imagination.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:07:23 -0800, Oculus Lights scribed:

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:49:29 PM UTC-8, News 2021 wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 07:58:31 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:
I wonder if anyone here knows that a B50 that you claim to have been
a crew chief on had 6 or so machine gun positions all manned by
enlisted men. And yet you seem to think that an enlisted man couldn't
be on a B52 despite the tail gunner on a B52D was ALWAYS and enlisted
man.
little tommy, you have no point. You are just throwing factoids.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Monty Python Argument Clinic, reincarnated!
Wow you guys are really going at it. Great entertainment in the middle
of a busy workday, Thank you for the diversion.

Pleased to help.