Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viewer Discretion Advised: George Bush Sr. in World War II.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Why not? Sitting around on a beach is the same anywhere in the world. When the hueys come into land, not many people realise exactly what was stacked against the gunners providing covering fire, for example.

    The point is, that it was more dangerous in Vietnam during the Vietnam war than in the US. No matter how bad Dubya's planes were better to be in one of them on landing then a Huey in a warzone.
    at

    Comment


    • #47
      Statistics makes no difference except to the office boys. Once you are dead, it does not matter how many seconds were given to you.


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Trooth
        Why not? Sitting around on a beach is the same anywhere in the world. When the hueys come into land, not many people realise exactly what was stacked against the gunners providing covering fire, for example.

        The point is, that it was more dangerous in Vietnam during the Vietnam war than in the US. No matter how bad Dubya's planes were better to be in one of them on landing then a Huey in a warzone.
        No no you missed the point. and at this point I don't feel like trying to straighten you out, your as crooked as a Sherman Bowtie.
        Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

        Comment


        • #49
          dissent with no evidence is loss.

          I stand my assertion, and no one has disproved my stats. It was more dangerous for a combat soldier in vietnam than for Dubya in his squadron.
          at

          Comment


          • #50
            By your reckoning, no door gunner on a huey would have ever been able to survive even his first mission let alone his first tour.
            Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

            Comment


            • #51
              Well, except for maybe the last one that was called in for a mission, right as orders came through to withdraw troops from Vietnam...
              :LOL
              I never understood "fire for effect". I thought the firing WAS the effect...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Stinger
                By your reckoning, no door gunner on a huey would have ever been able to survive even his first mission let alone his first tour.
                Statistics are some form of average. Nobody would ever say all door gunners got killed.

                These numbers came about because someone asserted that Dubya's squadron was dangerous. So, presumably, if you are questioning my numbers it is because you believe that his squadron suffered more risk than combat soldiers?
                at

                Comment


                • #53
                  you still don't get it. you gave Door gunners 15 seconds right? so for one gunner to live 30 seconds another had to die in less than 1 second ( that would avg 15 seconds) so for one gunner to last 45 seconds two would have to die in less than 1 second and so on. at that rate no door gunner period the end could be expected to finish his first 60 minute mission.
                  Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I think it is you that doens't get it, the maths isn't that complicated.

                    I could have 5 door gunners last ten seconds and one last 1 second

                    average? 8.5 seconds

                    so door gunners can last omnths, but if enough die early, the average is low

                    your life expectancy is say, 80 years ON AVERAGE. but that is controlled by your country's infant mortality rate not how long you yourself will live.
                    at

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I thought crack was outlawed in the UK as well...

                      Oh well, guess I was wrong.
                      I never understood "fire for effect". I thought the firing WAS the effect...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Trooth
                        I think it is you that doens't get it, the maths isn't that complicated.

                        I could have 5 door gunners last ten seconds and one last 1 second

                        average? 8.5 seconds

                        so door gunners can last omnths, but if enough die early, the average is low

                        your life expectancy is say, 80 years ON AVERAGE. but that is controlled by your country's infant mortality rate not how long you yourself will live.
                        and still with that math they are all DEAD in ten seconds.
                        Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Trooth, here's my question...

                          If the snipers you're talking about are THAT GOOD that they can pick off a side gunner in 10-15 seconds ON AVERAGE, even, then why the hell weren't they also able to pick off the pilot, or down the choppers themselves?

                          You figure with a drop into a combat zone that's going to be so hostile that the gunner only has 10-15 seconds to live, the snipers and other enemy forces would have enough presence of mind to take a few pot shots at the pilot (if not the propellors and other vitals of the helos themselves).

                          Just curious as to why the military would choose to keep sending another body into a helicopter every time it came back from a drop, without even enough time to wipe the blood and pieces out of the gunner's seat... assuming your numbers are correct, that is.
                          I never understood "fire for effect". I thought the firing WAS the effect...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            If i remember rightly Huey gunners were pretty exposed in a big open doorway. Pilots less so. I guess it is harder to take out a metal object then a nice fleshy one.

                            Soliders in vietnam saw 24 times more combat than their equivilants in WWII. The major reason for this the use of helicopters to engage the enemy.

                            The numbers quoted are for when the lead started flying. The numbers for the first lieutenants in WWII for D day were less than one second from when the landing craft door went down, for example.

                            Averages are bad statistics in that clearly not every soldier died quickly, but certain classes died quicker than others and at least you can rate them relative to each other.

                            Anyway, we all seem to have gone off topic :-

                            1) Did the programme / article on Bush Snr's unit being "cannablised" also cover the war crime allegations levelled at his own squadron?
                            2) Bush Jnr's tour of duty during the vietnam war wasn't as dangerous as a combat soldiers.
                            at

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              If i remember rightly Huey gunners were pretty exposed in a big open doorway. Pilots less so.
                              True, there was more exposure for the gunners, but the pilots weren't hidden behind "metal objects". Their windows were plenty clear enough to make them visible and viable targets for a sniper's bullet. And again, if a sniper had 10-15 seconds to take out the gunner, another sniper toward the front of the chopper would've had just as much time to open up on the pilot/co-pilot.

                              The numbers for the first lieutenants in WWII for D day were less than one second from when the landing craft door went down, for example.
                              I assume you meant to be a bit more specific by referring to the numbers for "1st lieutenants in WWII for D-Day at Normandy"?

                              It's this kind of 'vague answer' that is giving everybody problems with agreeing with your numbers. Your facts very well could be just that... facts. However, you haven't sufficiently backed them up with hard evidence. "If I recall correctly" isn't a reliable source in my opinion... well, at least until we all get to know you, or there's someone else willing to back you up on it.

                              Try posting a link to a website that SHOWS the numbers you're using. You say the average Huey gunner had 10-15 seconds? Show proof... other than your own inferences. I know I for one will get off your ass about it.

                              Until then, your data seems a bit inaccurate to me.
                              I never understood "fire for effect". I thought the firing WAS the effect...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I have given my sources earlier. Some is admittedly from memory. However the things people are arguing with me i have never said.

                                If you really want me to find online equivilants then so be it. If you will only accept the internet as "canon" again, so be it.

                                Either way it isn't going to change the central position of the argument: It was more dangerous for a combat solider in vietnam than it was for George W Bush in the US at the same time.
                                at

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X