My stepfather was in an 8" howitzer outfit on the Western Front in France in 1918. Before he died in 1985 at the age of 93, he told me a lot about being on the receiving end of a German artillery barrage.

He said that there was no way possible for anyone to understand what it was like unless you had been there yourself. He also stated that he had seen several BRAVE men go insane after having over 1,000 (that's right, one thousand!) rounds come down in just a few short hours.

Unfortunately for this good man, he was gassed with Mustard gas. He suffered from this for the rest of his life, and until about a year before he died, still had nightmares about being shelled.

Thank each and every one of you who have served!

From an ex-Staff Sargent, 379th Bomb Wing (Heavy), Strategic Air Command, USAF 1968-1972

>> ^alizarin:
1) If you can't separate your intended target from the civilians nearby then it's not a legitimate target.


You really can't separate the war from the civilians. Besides, the USAF has come a long way since the days where it would bomb civilian targets on purpose. The firebombing of Dresden, nuking Japan, napalming villages in Vietnam, etc.

Interesting tidbit:
Dr. Stapp's research on the decelerator had profound implications for both civilian and military aviation. For instance, the backward-facing seat concept, which was known previously, was given great impetus by the officer's crash research program, which proved beyond a doubt that this position was the safest for aircraft passengers and required little harness support, and that a human can withstand much greater deceleration than in the forward position.[7][Need quotation on talk to verify] As a result, many Military Air Transport Service (MATS) aircraft in USAF were equipped or retrofitted with this type of seat. Commercial airlines were made aware of these findings, but still use mostly forward-facing seats. The British Royal Air Force also installed it on many of their military transport aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang

My "flight experience" is solely with simulators so devalue my opinions accordingly.

I always found the 262 to be too fast for dogfighting. It was great for hitting bombers which were practically stationary targets, but it was very difficult to get a bead on another fighter before you shot past them.

The P-51 is quite fast and powerful, of course, but not especially maneuverable. USAF craft generally weren't as agile as RAF and Luftwaffe craft, IMO. Of course, by the time the Mustang saw heavy service, the US was on heavy offense. It was necessary to sacrifice some maneuverability in exchange for increased flight range for bombing runs and escorts.

As for the guy at the end stating that the Mustang is the WW2 plane everyone wants to fly, I say "fuck no." Give me a Spitfire XIV any day.

For some reason it reminded me of this event:

The 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident occurred at Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base on August 29–30, 2007. Six AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles, each loaded with a W80-1 variable yield nuclear warhead, were mistakenly loaded on a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52H heavy bomber at Minot and transported to Barksdale. The nuclear warheads in the missiles were supposed to have been removed before taking the missiles from their storage bunker. The missiles with the nuclear warheads were not reported missing and remained mounted to the aircraft at both Minot and Barksdale for a period of 36 hours. During this period, the warheads were not protected by the various mandatory security precautions required for nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident

i had a TS:SCI clearance as a programmer in the usaf.

we got a regular feed from the NRO, which we used to update mapping and command & control programs.

Unfortunately they choose to use some kind of Hollywood pyrotechnic flame burst explosive instead of actual USAF weapons.

That airframe is STILL the backbone of the USAF air-refueling fleet (since mid-50's)...they made it strong. Awesome sift, I never knew they did that.

^ The Polish F-16s are more advanced than the ones in USAF inventory.

>> ^kulpims:
^not a dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/B1-Lancer

lulz! and you're right.
the Tu was by no means a mere dupe, but a decided improvement in many respects.

just that, even short-timer non-rocketjocks in the usaf, like me, would recognize the similarity.
and hopefully now see it as a testament to the mutual admiration, and paranoid brinkmanship, of the cold war.

We can only hope that they will ultimately honor their oath to the Constitution instead of a corrupt administration that could easily abuse their power of the military.

It would be a horrible irony to see our trusted military (which took an oath to defend the law of the land) execute unconstitutional anti-citizen/citizen suppression in such a manner as to harm their fellow countrymen.
Hopefully there will be enough commanders that follow the UCMJ which clearly dictates that it is not only a member of the military's right but however is their duty to not follow illegal orders.

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

I remember having to study this when I was in boot camp in the USAF so I thought to look this up.

We have to trust our men and women in Uniform - there is little other choice really.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'C17, Globemaster, Airshow, Bray, Ireland, 2008' to 'C17, Globemaster, Airshow, Bray, Ireland, 2008, military, flyby, usaf, cargo, plane' - edited by my15minutes

Call me a cynic but I'm betting this came from USAF news archives, since they recently got busted for propagandizing in the US, they are pushing this overseas.


Here is McCain's 1973 interview on the topic.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=1

I have verifiable solid sources posted above from a Navy JAG Admiral and a USAF Colonel plus 2 recent presidents. Sorry but my sources seem to trump yours volumptuous.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

Also: USAF stock footage -- SUCK IT, NAVY!