“...I was Army, 75th Ranger, Airborne.
I could give diddily about jet jockeys other than the fact that they did O.K. by me as a grunt on the ground.
... second attempt at resurrecting a theory ...”
My admiration for US Army Airborne training stands second to none: slogged my way through the program in July 1972, coming away with the highest respect for Army NCOs and their methods.
But Tainan treads a familiar path: “I was a footsoldier and you were not. Because of that, I was braver than you. Therefore my notions deserve more attention, more respect, greater precedence.”
The relative prowess - and relative courage - of sundry components can be argued endlessly, but not a single word from that debate can tell us what each can do.
This isn’t about heroism. It’s about effectiveness.
Military forces sent aircraft aloft to protect footsoldiers. If Tainan chooses to view that truth as an insult, it’s time to study up. Again.
Without airplanes to protect them, footsoldiers are not much more than targets. Not a theory; simple fact. If I failed to explicate as much, I beg forgiveness from the forum.
It was true 100 years ago (see Battle of the Marne, Aug-Sep 1914). Commanders realized - not cheerfully - they couldn’t hide from enemy eyes, if those eyes were peering down from the air.
Aviators (not yet senior enough to carry clout with a leadership laboring under its own ego problems) were there to help, and some realized an edge might be gained, if airplanes could carry a machine gun aloft and clear the skies of enemy scouts.
And thus fighter aviation came to be.
Its concepts and execution did not spring full-grown from anyone’s forehead, but dawned on combatants only dimly, the most primitive recognition of reality. It advanced, tit for tat, centimeter by centimeter, at times painfully. But it was a secondary capability and remains so in 2014.
Never in doubt were the egos of the fighter pilots.
In the American military, their fortunes rose and fell until they contrived to topple USAF leadership in 1992. And air power has been on the decline ever since.
As a group, fighter pilots are without honor. Before respondents bridle, please read this comment by CDR “Willie” Driscoll (USN, ret): “If you’re a fighter pilot and you’re not cheating, you’re not doing your job.”
CDR Driscoll was an F-4 backseater for Randy “Duke” Cunningham, noted USN fighter pilot in SEA, though he is chiefly remembered these days for unseemly behavior as a US Rep in the House (for the San Diego area, I think).
So what Tainan and many other posters have misidentified as a “theory”, is this:
1. Fighter pilots are capable of great deeds, but their skills are of a low order.
2. They pride themselves on dominating all others, not on leading, and are competition junkies. They obsess on beating all comers, to the neglect of all else. A propensity of occasional use in action; dangerous when they can only find competitors among members of their own service, joint services, combined allies, or countrymen.
3. Therefore, the farther we keep them from the levers of power, the better.
“...I was Army, 75th Ranger, Airborne.
I could give diddily about jet jockeys other than the fact that they did O.K. by me as a grunt on the ground.
... second attempt at resurrecting a theory ...”
My admiration for US Army Airborne training stands second to none: slogged my way through the program in July 1972, coming away with the highest respect for Army NCOs and their methods.
But Tainan treads a familiar path: “I was a footsoldier and you were not. Because of that, I was braver than you. Therefore my notions deserve more attention, more respect, greater precedence.”
The relative prowess - and relative courage - of sundry components can be argued endlessly, but not a single word from that debate can tell us what each can do.
This isn’t about heroism. It’s about effectiveness.
Military forces sent aircraft aloft to protect footsoldiers. If Tainan chooses to view that truth as an insult, it’s time to study up. Again.
Without airplanes to protect them, footsoldiers are not much more than targets. Not a theory; simple fact. If I failed to explicate as much, I beg forgiveness from the forum.
It was true 100 years ago (see Battle of the Marne, Aug-Sep 1914). Commanders realized - not cheerfully - they couldn’t hide from enemy eyes, if those eyes were peering down from the air.
Aviators (not yet senior enough to carry clout with a leadership laboring under its own ego problems) were there to help, and some realized an edge might be gained, if airplanes could carry a machine gun aloft and clear the skies of enemy scouts.
And thus fighter aviation came to be.
Its concepts and execution did not spring full-grown from anyone’s forehead, but dawned on combatants only dimly, the most primitive recognition of reality. It advanced, tit for tat, centimeter by centimeter, at times painfully. But it was a secondary capability and remains so in 2014.
Never in doubt were the egos of the fighter pilots.
In the American military, their fortunes rose and fell until they contrived to topple USAF leadership in 1992. And air power has been on the decline ever since.
As a group, fighter pilots are without honor. Before respondents bridle, please read this comment by CDR “Willie” Driscoll (USN, ret): “If you’re a fighter pilot and you’re not cheating, you’re not doing your job.”
CDR Driscoll was an F-4 backseater for Randy “Duke” Cunningham, noted USN fighter pilot in SEA, though he is chiefly remembered these days for unseemly behavior as a US Rep in the House (for the San Diego area, I think).
So what Tainan and many other posters have misidentified as a “theory”, is this:
1. Fighter pilots are capable of great deeds, but their skills are of a low order.
2. They pride themselves on dominating all others, not on leading, and are competition junkies. They obsess on beating all comers, to the neglect of all else. A propensity of occasional use in action; dangerous when they can only find competitors among members of their own service, joint services, combined allies, or countrymen.
3. Therefore, the farther we keep them from the levers of power, the better.