Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="r16" data-source="post: 62895" data-attributes="member: 536">ok let me give a try ...one of the things the layman notices all the time is that militaries are continiously stuck up in the old decisions they have made . An United States build earlier might have eaten those precious funds that allowed Forrestal being build , USAF had much more truth in its claims about its capability in the B-52 and a USN carrier force might have well been done away in a 1950s debate where the instrument in discussion would be the Stratofortress - which is still available in the 21st Century - instead of the B-36 the unvisible bomber of the Admirals' revolt .  A very large bomber might have been certainly impressive but how many would have been available to what use , would it win the Vietnam , in case it was winnable ?should not enter to a wild phantasy discussion of the pruning of certain ranks in a certain service which might well cause me expelled ; ı have other ideas for that to happen . Politics always play an important part in anything and USN has profitted from being the underdog in that case ; a solid lead that USAF is yet to break , though the Airmen have done much lately . And those seasalts  deserve our "gratitude" since in so forcefully reminding people that nuking was not an option , they made our world somewhat safer . Think how many stone ages Curtiss Le May would have given us , if allowed free rein . One of the anectodes about the firebreathing general has him aboard a B-29 or 50 and the crew unfortunately drop an hatch or whatever on him . Washington had to rein in his war heroes in peace ; God protect us in war ...</blockquote>

Verification: What year did the first man go to space? (answer has 4 numbers)