Military Matters Page 10
Many of us have been there and done that  --  But lets not forget the young Troops that are doing it today.
-- U.S. looking to new generation fighter - 10/12
-- General slams military for forgetting history - 10/14/12
-- Fl Gov signs bill to help FL Veterans - 5/31/2011
-- The WikiLeaks Challenge - 12/3/10
-- The Bomber - Posted 2009
-- In the Military, Racial Integration and Sexual Liberation Are Not the Same Thing - 10/22/10
-- He was killed in Iraq, I'm taking him home to his family - 10/5/09

Home   TOC

  U.S. looking to new generation fighter    

Published: 12 hours ago by F. Michael Maloof


F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.More ?Less ?
Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.

WASHINGTON – The Department of Defense has signaled that it wants the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy to begin working on the next generation aircraft even though these services are having a hard time obtaining the fifth-generation stealth F-35 due to serious cost overruns and production delays, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The timing also is questionable in view of impending cuts in defense spending and the across-the-board sequestration budget cuts that could cost DOD almost a trillion dollars over the next decade.

In an Oct. 10, 2012, letter to the secretaries of the Air Force and Navy, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall bypassed concerns about the F-35 deployments and said that “it is not too early to begin consideration of the next generation of capability” that is to complement and eventually replace the F-35.

In the face of these drastic cuts, Kendall implied that the purpose of initiating this effort is to keep defense contractors working.

“I am concerned that our ability to design cutting edge platforms of this type is already atrophying,” Kendal said. “In addition, the potential for viable future competition in this area will shrink or be eliminated if the Department (of Defense) does not take action soon.

“Our design teams for high performance air vehicles are an important national resource,” he said. “They will not be preserved, and our technological advantage in this area will not endure, unless we provide a meaningful opportunity for leading-edge design, build, and test activities.”

Kendall wants the Air Force and Navy to work with DOD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is to initiate research to explore what may be new concepts for the next generation aircraft, or “air dominance.”

To keep military aircraft producers working, Kendall wants DARPA to explore the roles of manned and unmanned aircraft, the “relative performance of alternative integrated system or systems concepts that combine various mixes of capabilities networked together” – whatever that means – and the cost effectiveness of alternative “balances of platforms and systems that provide surveillance, command and control, electronic warfare and weapons functions.

“Innovative platform concepts for airframe, propulsion, sensors, weapons integration, avionics, an active and passive survivability features will be explored as a central part of the concept definition effort,” Kendall said.

The F-35 for the past decade has been the only high performance aircraft in development in the U.S.

While Kendall wants DARPA, the Air Force and Navy to explore future generations of military fighter jets, the reality is that the current F-35 program has experienced serious cost overruns and has had production and delivery delays. Currently, the Air Force and Navy are unable to acquire the needed F-35s for their operational use, even though it is to “provide a decisive advantage in the air for the next few decades,” Kendall said.

In addition, some 11 foreign countries have heavily invested in the F-35 to be their standard jet fighter and in the process have cut back on their own jet fighter production industry. Now, America’s allies will have to rely on their aging F-15s, F-16s and F-18s for the unforeseen future.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

 General slams military for forgetting history

10/14/12     by Kevin DeAnna is a WND staff writer

Medal of Honor recipient says focus no longer on wounded

A “very, very disappointed” Gen. Patrick Brady has slammed the U.S. Army for forgetting the lessons of the legendary “Dust Off” helicopter ambulance program from the Vietnam War.

It was in an interview on “Talk Back with Chuck Wilder,” that Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, explained that bureaucratic changes within the Army are endangering wounded soldiers.

He’s also the author of “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Vietnam.”

“The focus is not on the patient,” he explained, noting that increased emphasis has been placed on risk assessment, command and control, and other factors that “Dust Off” pilots in Vietnam “had not even heard of.”

During the Vietnam War, helicopter rescue pilots had autonomy to accept missions themselves and determine the level of risk. Even though Brady has “talked to as many people as I can get to,” it appears that risk-averse policies from rear-echelon commanders are more important than the opinions of pilots.

“They took control of a medical service away from doctors and gave it to aviation staff officers,” he said.

The result is that before a rescue operation can be launched, the mission must be approved by someone who is not even on the battlefield. He explained a patient’s survival depends on the decision from someone who is in no position to actually observe his condition.

Furthermore, the missions are launched using an unnecessary number of helicopters and gunships, meaning that the Army actually is providing less efficient and effective rescue operations with “four engines, compared to what we used to do with one.”

Brady recounted an especially hurtful story of how an American soldier turned his back on him when he learned the general was a “Dust Off” pilot, mistakenly associating him with the modern program that leaves soldiers wounded on the battlefield until it is too late.

As an example, Brady told a story from Afghanistan where a wounded American soldier was trapped on a mountainside, while the enemy was on the other side of the mountain. A simple rescue mission was not approved until the next morning.

The general noted that helicopter pilots are as able as ever to participate in rapid rescue efforts, but they are hamstrung by official guidelines that prevent them from acting. Host Chuck Wilder observed that it sounds similar to the “red tape” of government regulation.

In contrast, “Dust Off” operations during Vietnam were regarded as primarily a medical service, and its pilots held to a strict code that put patients first. Maj. Charles Kelly, regarded as the father of “Dust Off,” exemplified the standard.

He died when he refused to leave a hot landing zone, saying he would only escape “When I have your wounded.” Soon after that, he was shot and killed.

Wilder explored Brady’s actions as leader of the 54th Medical Detachment, drawing some acknowledgement of Brady’s accomplishments out of the modest general. The unit rescued more than 21,000 wounded in 10 months.

When Brady stated that his unit found a way to fly in zero visibility fog, Wilder corrected him and stated that it was Brady personally who discovered the technique of flying into the fog sideways to gain the tiny visibility needed to determine direction.

Brady credited his faith in God with his survival in combat and his ability to save so many lives.

“My faith was a substitute for fear,” he said.

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

 As a Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am honored to announce that Governor Scott signed the Deployed Service Member Tax Exemption bill that I carried in the house and I have included a wrap up of the legislation in this email.  Please feel free to forward this information to anyone that you think could be considered for this tax exemption. This bill is a way for all Floridians to show thanks to our deployed military members. HB 1141, designates an additional homestead property tax exemption for members of the United States military, the United States Coast Guard, the Florida National Guard and any reservist who receives a homestead exemption and was deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii.

Your Friend and Neighbor,
Greg Steube

Additional information about this legislation can be found at The Florida House of Representatives Website
or by contacting the Florida Department of Military Affairs  (904) 823-0364.

 The WikiLeaks Challenge

12/3/2010     By Caroline Glick    Townhall

Make no mistake about it, the ongoing WikiLeaks operation against the US is an act of war. It is not merely a criminal offense to publish hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents with malice aforethought. It is an act of sabotage.

Like acts of kinetic warfare on military battlefields, WikiLeaks' information warfare against the US aims to weaken the US. By exposing US government secrets, it seeks to embarrass and discredit America in a manner that makes it well neigh impossible for the US to carry out either routine diplomacy or build battlefield coalitions to defeat its enemies.

So far WikiLeaks has published more than 800,000 classified US documents. It has exposed classified information about US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and it has divulged 250,000 diplomatic cables.

One of the most distressing aspects of the WikiLeaks operation is the impotent US response to it. This operation has been going on since April. And the US had foreknowledge of the attack in the weeks and months before it began. And yet, the US has taken no effective steps to defend itself. Pathetically, the most it has been able to muster to date is the issuance of an international arrest warrant against WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange on rape charges in Sweden.

The US has not taken down the website. Aside from the US Army soldier Pfc Bradley Manning who leaked most of the documents to the website, no one has been arrested. And the US appears impotent to prevent the website from carrying through on its latest threat to publish new documents aimed at weakening the US economy next month.

Neither US President Barack Obama nor any of his top advisers has had anything relevant or useful to say about this onslaught. Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured journalists that the damage caused by publishing US operations on the battlefield, classified reports of meetings with and assessments of foreign heads of state and other highly sensitive information will have no long lasting impact on US power or status.

Ignoring the fact that the operation is aimed specifically against America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was "an attack on the international community."

While the expressed aim of the attackers is to weaken the US, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs called them "criminals, first and foremost." And US Attorney-General Eric Holder said he's checking the law books to figure out how to prosecute WikiLeaks personnel.

The leaked documents themselves expose a profound irony. To wit: The US is unwilling to lift a finger to defend itself against an act of information warfare which exposed to the world that the US is unwilling to lift a finger to protect itself and its allies from the most profound military threats endangering international security today.

In spite of the unanimity of the US's closest Arab allies that Iran's nuclear installations must be destroyed militarily - a unanimity confirmed by the documents revealed by WikiLeaks - the US has refused to take action. Instead it clings to a dual strategy of sanctions and engagement that everyone recognizes has failed repeatedly and has no chance of future success.

In spite of proof that North Korea is transferring advanced ballistic missiles to Iran through China, again confirmed by the illegally released documents, the US continues to push a policy of engagement based on a belief that there is value to China's vote for sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. It continues to push a policy predicated on its unfounded faith that China is interested in restraining North Korea.

In spite of the fact that US leaders including Gates recognize that Turkey is not a credible ally and that its leaders are radical Islamists, as documented in the classified documents, the US has agreed to sell Turkey a hundred F-35s. The US continues to support Turkish membership in the EU and of course embraces Turkey as a major NATO ally.

The publication of the US's true feelings about Turkey has not made a dent in its leaders' unwillingness to contend with reality. On the heels of the WikiLeaks exposure of thousands of documents from the US Embassy in Ankara discussing Turkish animosity towards America, Clinton flew to Turkey for the first leg of what The New York Times referred to as an "international contrition tour."

There she sucked up to the likes of Turkish Foreign Minister and Islamist ideologue Ahmet Davutoglu, who was kind enough to agree with Clinton's assertion that the publication of the State Department cables was "the 9/11 of diplomacy."

THE MOST important question that arises from the entire WikiLeaks disaster is why the US refuses to defend itself and its interests. What is wrong with Washington? Why is it allowing WikiLeaks to destroy its international reputation, credibility and ability to conduct international relations and military operations? And why has it refused to contend with the dangers it faces from the likes of Iran and North Korea, Turkey, Venezuela and the rest of the members of the axis of evil that even State Department officers recognize are colluding to undermine and destroy US superpower status?

The answer appears to be twofold. First, there is an issue of cowardice.

American leaders are afraid to fight their enemies. They don't want a confrontation with Iran or North Korea, or Venezuela or Turkey for that matter, because they don't want to deal with difficult situations with no easy answers or silver bullets to make problems disappear.

WikiLeaks showed that there is no Israel lobby plotting to bring the US into a war to serve Jewish interests. There is something approaching an international consensus that Iran is the head of the snake that must be cut off, as the Saudi potentate described it.

Yet that consensus opinion has fallen on deaf American ears for the past seven years. This despite the fact that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration certainly recognized that if the US were to attack Iran's nuclear installations or help Israel do so, despite all the theater of public handwringing and finger- wagging at Israel, the Arabs and the Europeans and Asians would celebrate the operation.

THE SECOND explanation for this behavior is ideological. The Obama administration will not take concerted action against WikiLeaks because doing so will compromise its adherence to leftist politically correct nostrums.

Those views assert that there is something fundamentally wrong with the assertion of US power and therefore the US has no right to defend itself. Moreover, nothing the Arabs or any other non-Western governments do is a function of their will. Rather it is a function of their response to US or Israeli aggression.

So it is that in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures that put paid the fiction that Israel is behind the fuss over Iran's nuclear weapons program, Juan Cole, the anti-Israel ideologue and conspiracy theorist favored by the Obama administration, published an article in The Guardian proclaiming that Israel is to blame for Saudis' fear of Iran. If the Arab masses weren't so worked up over Israeli aggression in Gaza, he claimed, the Saudi leadership wouldn't have been upset about Iran.

It is this sort of non sequitur that allows the Obama administration to continue pretending that the world is not a hard place and that there are no problems that cannot be solved by pressuring Israel.

So too, Fred Kaplan at Slate online magazine claimed that the leaks showed that the Obama administration's foreign policy is successful because it succeeded in getting China on board with UN sanctions against Iran. But of course, what the documents show is that China is breaching those sanctions, rendering the entire exercise at the UN worthless.

And the Left's voice of "reason," the New York Times editorial page, lauded the Obama administration for its courage in rejecting the pleas of Arab states and Israel and fiddling while Iranian centrifuges spin. According to the Times, true courage consists of defying reality, strategic necessity and allies to defend the dogmas of political correctness.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how fecklessly the US is behaving is by comparing its actions to those of Israel, which suffered a similar, if far smaller case of data theft earlier this year.

In April, the public learned that towards the end of her IDF service, a secretary in the office of the commander of Central Command named Anat Kamm copied some 2,000 highly secret documents onto her zip drive. After leaving the army she was hired as a reporter by the far-left Walla news portal, which was then partially owned by the far-left Haaretz newspaper. Kamm gave the documents she stole to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau, who began publishing them in November 2008.

Haaretz used its considerable power to discredit the investigation of Kamm and Blau by falsely telling foreign reporters that the story was an issue of press freedom and that Kamm was being persecuted as a journalist rather than investigated for treason she committed while serving in the military.

In the face of the predictable international outcry, Israel stuck to its guns. Kamm is on trial for stealing state secrets with the intent of harming state security and Blau, who fled to London, returned to Israel with the stolen documents.

While there is much to criticize in Israel's handling of the case, there is no doubt that despite its international weakness, Israeli authorities did not shirk their duty to defend state secrets.

THE FINAL irony of the WikiLeaks scandal is the cowardice of WikiLeaks that stands at the foundation of the story. Founded in 2006, Wikileaks was supposed to serve the cause of freedom. It claimed that it would defend dissidents in China, the former Soviet Union and other places where human rights remains an empty term. But then China made life difficult for WikiLeaks and so four years later, Assange and his colleagues declared war on the US, rightly assuming that unlike China, the US would take their attacks lying down. Why take risks to defend dissidents in a police state when it's so much easier and so much more rewarding to attempt to destroy free societies?

Assange and company are hardly the first to take this course. Human Rights Watch, created to fight for those crushed under the Soviet jackboot, now spends its millions of George Soros dollars to help terrorists in their war against the US and Israel. Amnesty International forgot long ago that it was founded to help prisoners of police states and instead devotes itself to attacking the imaginary evils of the Jewish state and Western democracies.

And that brings us to the real question raised by the WikiLeaks assault on America. Can democracies today protect themselves? In the era of leftist political correctness with its founding principle that Western power is evil and that the freedom to harm democracies is inviolate, can democracies defend their security and national interests?

Caroline Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.
Be the first to read Caroline Glick's column. Sign up today and receive delivered each morning to your inbox.

 In the Military, Racial Integration and Sexual Liberation Are Not the Same Thing

October 22, 2010    by Peter Sprigg

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers “inevitable”) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly “inevitable.” Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last month’s Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips’ muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the “integration” of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the opposite—the 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1) Is being “gay” like being black?

2) Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to “sexual orientation” as though it were an innate characteristic—what homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare “sexual orientation” to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of “sexual orientation” are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution. The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion . . . are the essence of military capability,” and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the military—but those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised. The others are:

•Damage to unit effectiveness.
•Health consequences with high cost.
•Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
•Special protections for homosexuals.
•Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
•Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
•Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.
The argument that, as the “gay” newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, “Gay is the New Black,” is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

 From an e-mail I received dated Oct 5, 2009:

Last week, while traveling to Chicago on business, I noticed a Marine sergeant traveling with a folded flag, but did not put two and two together..

After we boarded our flight, I turned to the sergeant, who'd been invited to sit in First Class (across from me), and inquired if he was heading home.

No, he responded.
Heading out I asked?

No. I'm escorting a soldier home.

Going to pick him up?

No. He is with me right now. He was killed in Iraq, I'm taking him home to his family.

The realization of what he had been asked to do hit me like a punch to the gut. It was an honor for him. He told me that, although he didn't know the soldier, he had delivered the news of his passing to the soldier’s family and felt as if he knew them after many conversations in so few days.

I turned back to him, extended my hand, and said, Thank you Thank you for doing what you do so my family and I can do! What we do.

Upon landing in Chicago the pilot stopped short of the gate and made the following announcement over the intercom.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to note that we have had the honor of having Sergeant Steeley of the United States Marine Corps join us on this flight   He is escorting a fallen comrade back home to his family.  I ask that you please remain in your seats when we open the forward door to allow Sergeant Steeley to deplane and receive his fellow soldier.  We will then turn off the seat belt sign."

Without a sound, all went as requested. I noticed the sergeant saluting the casket as it was brought off the plane, and his action made me realize that I am proud to be an American.

So here's a public Thank You to our military Men and Women for what you do so we can live the way we! do.

Red Fridays.

Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing Red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority." We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or overbearing.

Many Americans, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -- and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that ... Every red-blooded American who supports our men and women a far, will wear something red

By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers. If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family, it will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once “silent" majority is on their side more than ever, certainly more than the media lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is. "We need your support and your prayers." Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example, and wear something RED every Friday.

I am asking our PRESIDENT and his entire cabinets to wear RED on every Friday to support our troops. Mr. President will you request your cabinet?

I am asking our every government officials to wear RED on every Friday to support our troops. Every department head will you request your members?

I am asking CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC and all other news media to wear RED on every Friday to support our troops. Every department head will you request your members?

I have requested my staff. Can you do your part?

 The Bomber

Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up.. It was ready to fall out of the sky. (This is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later.) Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised.

Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.

After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.

Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.

ME-109 pilot Franz Stigler B-17 pilot Charlie Brown

Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe . When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.

More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.

They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.

(L-R) German Ace Franz Stigler, artist Ernie Boyett, and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.

When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.

Both men died in 2008.


Home   Index   Top

Thema: Fw: Der Bomber

Schauen Sie vorsichtig auf den B-17 und Zeichen, wie zusammengeschossen es - ein Motortoter, Schwanz, horizontaler Ausgleicher und zusammengeschossene Nase ist.. Es war bereit, aus dem Himmel zu fallen. (Das ist eine Malerei getan von einem Künstler von der Beschreibung von beiden Piloten viele Jahre später.) Dann begreifen, dass es einen Deutschen ICH 109 Kämpfer gibt, der daneben fliegt. Lesen Sie jetzt die Geschichte unten. Ich denke, dass Sie überrascht werden.

Gestellter B17-1 Hier

Brauner Charlie war ein B-17 der Fliegende Festungspilot mit der 379. Bomber-Gruppe an Kimbolton, England. Sein B-17 wurde 'Sie Alte Bar' genannt und war in einem schrecklichen Zustand, durch die Luftabwehr und Kämpfer geschlagen worden sein. Der Kompass wurde beschädigt, und sie flogen tiefer über das feindliche Territorium, anstatt nach Hause zu Kimbolton zu gehen.

Nach dem Fliegen des B-17 über einen feindlichen Flugplatz wurde einem deutschen Piloten genannt Franz Stigler befohlen, sich zu entfernen und den B-17 niederzuschießen. Als er in der Nähe vom B-17 kam, konnte er nicht seine Augen glauben. In seinen Worten hatte er 'ein Flugzeug in solch einem schlechten Zustand' nie gesehen. Der Schwanz und hintere Abteilung wurden streng beschädigt, und der Schwanz-Kanonier verwundete. Der Spitzenkanonier war überall in der Spitze des Rumpfs. Die Nase wurde zerschlagen und es gab Löcher überall.

Trotz, Munition zu haben, flog Franz beiseite des B-17 und schaute auf das Charlie Braun, den Piloten. Braun war erschrocken und sich anstrengend, sein beschädigtes und blutbeflecktes Flugzeug zu kontrollieren.

Gestellter B17-2 Hier

ICH 109 Pilot Franz Stigler

Gestellter B17-3 Hier

Brauner B-17-Pilot Charlie

Bewusst, dass sie keine Idee hatten, wohin sie gingen, winkte Franz an Charlie, um 180 Grade zu drehen. Franz eskortierte und führte das geschlagene Flugzeug zu, und ein bisschen, die Nordsee zu England. Er grüßte dann Charlie Braun und abgewandt zurück nach Europa. Als Franz landete, sagte er der COMPANY, dass das Flugzeug in Übersee niedergeschossen worden war, und nie zu irgendjemandem die Wahrheit sagte. Charlie Braun und das Bleiben seiner Mannschaft erzählten alle an ihrer Anweisung, aber wurden befohlen, darüber nie zu sprechen.

Mehr als 40 Jahre später wollte Brauner Charlie den Luftwaffe-Piloten finden, der die Mannschaft rettete. Nach Jahren der Forschung wurde Franz gefunden. Er hatte über das Ereignis nicht sogar an Nachkriegswiedervereinigungen nie gesprochen.

Sie trafen sich in den USA an einer 379. Bomber-Gruppenwiedervereinigung zusammen mit 25 Menschen, die jetzt - alle lebendig sind, weil Franz nie seine Pistolen an diesem Tag anzündete.

Gestellter B17-4 Hier

(L-R) deutsches As Franz Stigler, Künstler Ernie Boyett, und der B-17 Braune Pilot Charlie.

Wenn gefragt, warum er sie nicht niederschoß, sagte Stigler später, ich hatte das Herz nicht, um jene tapferen Männer zu beenden. Ich flog neben ihrer seit langem. Sie versuchten verzweifelt nachhause zu kommen, und ich war dabei, sie das tun zu lassen. Ich könnte nicht nach ihnen geschossen haben. Es wäre dasselbe als das Schießen nach einem Mann in einem Fallschirm gewesen.

Beide Männer starben 2008.

Home   TOC