|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > May 2005 > OT - Book recommendation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT - Book recommendation
|
|
|
| "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud, if you haven't already read it. I've
read several of his WW2 books, like his style. This book is about the air
war in the SW Pacific. One of the more interesting points to me, is that
the Allies lost many more planes, roughly twice, to operational losses
(accidents, mech failures, etc.), than to combat.
Anyway, good book.
| |
| Mike G 2005-05-14, 12:31 am |
| In article <seahe.749$Q15.7154@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
says...
quote:
> "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud, if you haven't already read it. I've
> read several of his WW2 books, like his style. This book is about the air
> war in the SW Pacific. One of the more interesting points to me, is that
> the Allies lost many more planes, roughly twice, to operational losses
> (accidents, mech failures, etc.), than to combat.
>
> Anyway, good book.
>
>
>
It really isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have
always out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
consideration sickness.
As far as planes and crews are concerned if you took all the thousands
of hours flown and subtracted actual combat flights I wouldn't be the
least bit surprised if the figures for the remaining hours flown by
recon flight, CAP flights, cargo flights, transport flights, etc
accounted for eighty percent or better of the total.
--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods
mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
www.heirloom-woods.net
| |
|
|
"Mike G" <mikeg@heirloom-woods.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cef33da7fd0dab09896e0@news.comcast.giganews.com...
quote:
> In article <seahe.749$Q15.7154@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
> says...
I've[vbcol=seagreen]
air[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It really isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
> personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have
> always out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
> consideration sickness.
>
> As far as planes and crews are concerned if you took all the thousands
> of hours flown and subtracted actual combat flights I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if the figures for the remaining hours flown by
> recon flight, CAP flights, cargo flights, transport flights, etc
> accounted for eighty percent or better of the total.
>
> --
> Mike G.
> Heirloom Woods
> mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
> www.heirloom-woods.net
It sounds like you're talking about personnel ? The book is talking
about actual *aircraft* losses. There was always way more pilots than
planes, on both sides (another point the book makes).
| |
| Mike G 2005-05-14, 8:35 pm |
| In article <nwehe.765$Q15.7325@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
says...
quote:
>
> It sounds like you're talking about personnel ? The book is talking
> about actual *aircraft* losses. There was always way more pilots than
> planes, on both sides (another point the book makes).
>
>
>
>
Missed the second paragraph did you.
--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods
mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
www.heirloom-woods.net
| |
|
|
"Mike G" <mikeg@heirloom-woods.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cefbf7b9396f3a39896e2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
quote:
> In article <nwehe.765$Q15.7325@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> Missed the second paragraph did you.
>
> --
> Mike G.
> Heirloom Woods
> mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
> www.heirloom-woods.net
Not at all, that's why I asked. From your first paragraph..."It really
isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have always
out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
consideration sickness."
Sure sounds like personnel to me. Unless somehow one being sick, causes a
plane to magically be destroyed, i.e., a loss.
| |
| Mike G 2005-05-17, 8:34 pm |
| In article <nwehe.765$Q15.7325@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
says...
quote:
>
> It sounds like you're talking about personnel ? The book is talking
> about actual *aircraft* losses. There was always way more pilots than
> planes, on both sides (another point the book makes).
>
>
>
>
Missed the second paragraph did you.
--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods
mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
www.heirloom-woods.net
| |
| Mike G 2005-05-28, 3:32 am |
| In article <seahe.749$Q15.7154@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
says...
quote:
> "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud, if you haven't already read it. I've
> read several of his WW2 books, like his style. This book is about the air
> war in the SW Pacific. One of the more interesting points to me, is that
> the Allies lost many more planes, roughly twice, to operational losses
> (accidents, mech failures, etc.), than to combat.
>
> Anyway, good book.
>
>
>
It really isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have
always out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
consideration sickness.
As far as planes and crews are concerned if you took all the thousands
of hours flown and subtracted actual combat flights I wouldn't be the
least bit surprised if the figures for the remaining hours flown by
recon flight, CAP flights, cargo flights, transport flights, etc
accounted for eighty percent or better of the total.
--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods
mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
www.heirloom-woods.net
| |
|
|
"Mike G" <mikeg@heirloom-woods.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cefbf7b9396f3a39896e2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
quote:
> In article <nwehe.765$Q15.7325@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> Missed the second paragraph did you.
>
> --
> Mike G.
> Heirloom Woods
> mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
> www.heirloom-woods.net
Not at all, that's why I asked. From your first paragraph..."It really
isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have always
out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
consideration sickness."
Sure sounds like personnel to me. Unless somehow one being sick, causes a
plane to magically be destroyed, i.e., a loss.
| |
|
|
"Mike G" <mikeg@heirloom-woods.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cef33da7fd0dab09896e0@news.comcast.giganews.com...
quote:
> In article <seahe.749$Q15.7154@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
> says...
I've[vbcol=seagreen]
air[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It really isn't too surprising. With a ratio of from 15 to 25 support
> personal to every one man in actual combat operational losses have
> always out numbered combat losses and that isn't even taking into
> consideration sickness.
>
> As far as planes and crews are concerned if you took all the thousands
> of hours flown and subtracted actual combat flights I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if the figures for the remaining hours flown by
> recon flight, CAP flights, cargo flights, transport flights, etc
> accounted for eighty percent or better of the total.
>
> --
> Mike G.
> Heirloom Woods
> mikeg@heirloom-woods.net
> www.heirloom-woods.net
It sounds like you're talking about personnel ? The book is talking
about actual *aircraft* losses. There was always way more pilots than
planes, on both sides (another point the book makes).
|
| |
|
|