OCR Text |
Show 6 HILL TOP TIMES Friday, August 1, 1986 editonal s stresses strong air power WWII tailgunner By Angela Wineteer Directorate of Materiel Management As Americans, we recognize that a strong defense is vital to preserving the many freedoms we enjoy. Collectively and individually, there are those Americans whose memories of past events give us a perspective by which we can judge the value of a modern Air Force. Those who have heard their stories have a greater understanding and appreciation of "what it was all about," and hopefully, a greater perception of the contribution those Americans made toward winning the war in the air during WWII and our con- tinuing need for strong air power. Volmer L. Miller, an item management specialist in the Directorate of Materiel Management, is one of what happened then will remain forever. Many of his colleagues were lost; some came home to remember also. He sums up his support for defense by stating, "In this time of fiscal constraint, as a multitude of special-interegroups vie for limited federal dollars, all too often defense is expected to take the brunt of spending cuts. Since defense needs are dictated by the action of other countries (Libya, a case in point), we as Americans should strongly support the president's defense spending request." In Congress' attempts to reduce deficit spending, we cannot afford to ignore the vital role defense plays in ensuring protection from external threats. Inasmuch as the Soviet Union invested overn $500 billion more than the U.S. did in defense between 1970 and 1985, building three times as many strategic missiles, how long can we afford not to rectify this imbalance in defense spending? American people, the Soviets, and any would-b- e aggressors need to clearly understand. . .neither American warriors nor their weaponry should be underestimated. While reading Gen. Robert W. Bazley's ,"Answering the Critic of a Modern Air Force," TIG Brief 5, May 1986, page 8 and Volmer L. Miller's "Addressing Previous Commentary (Insights and analysis) TIG Brief 7, 1986, page 11, 1 felt a great need to express my gratitude to those Americans, like Volmer Miller, who have taken time to express their feelings as Americans toward defense matters. Like Volmer Miller, their concern for maintaining a strong defense is apparent. Mr. Miller was born in Logan, the oldest 6f nine children. At age 21, he entered the Army Air Corps and flew as a tailgunner on with the 569th Bomb Squadron. Between 1943 and 1945 he was stationed at several different air bases and flew 33 mis- st July-Augu- sions over Europe He recounts events in which he participated that were interesting in themselves and constituted a contribution to the real history of the air war as it was fought in the skies over Europe during WWII. I cannot help but meditate on memories expressed by Mr. Miller and be thankful that people like him were committed to a noble cause, with pride in both personal and national competence. We should now review those memories to deepen our commitment to a strong, modern Air Force. Following is Mr. Miller's article. "Addressing Previous Commentary." written in response to Gen. Robert W. Basley's article. "Answering the Critic of a ft r a Modern Air rforce. pUbUshedinTIG Brief 5, m. AirJ st .;:K::::::y:::::v B-1- 7s ur el anti-aircra- F-1- ur "Improved accuracy of modern weapons would result in between 10 and 100 times as many pounds of ordnance actually hitting the target for each ton carried to the target area by the first line bomber 43 years ago, the "Accounting for inflation, each bomber used to fight World War II, if built to 1943 standards and paid for at today's prices, would cost about 12 times as many dollars as it did then. cost $240,000 in 1943. It would cost "Each The price of one 6 would buy now. $2,880,000 In a week of fighting some about five or six would deliver 25 to 30 thou50 men flying five sand pounds of bombs on or near the target. "In one day of fighting one person flying an 6 would put 24 to 48 thousand pounds of ordnance on the target. During the rest of the week aircrews would be able to make many other trips to other B-1- 7. B-17- G F-1- w;ijL,0 0:5 in TIG Brief 7, 1986, page 11: "This treatise supports General Bazley's thesis. he uses in "The his thennow comparison carried five thousand pounds of bombs on a (U.S. Air Force Photo) typical mission, and had a Volmer L. Miller crew of 10 men. To strike a target 500 miles behind enemy lines we would be in a hostile environment for about five hours. Thus, we delivered about 100 pounds of ordnance in enemy territory. The actual 'bomb per man-horun' was 'stable platform' straight-and-levflight for about 10 minutes. "That was 10 minutes of predictable vulnerability ft fire and fighter attack. to hostile "The a modern fighter aircraft, can carry 12,000 pounds of explosive ordnance per mission. On an attack on the same target mentioned above, one individual would be in hostile territory about 20 minutes. Aircrews would then deliver the equivalent of 36,000 pounds of bombs to the target per man- July-Augu- hour in hostile territory with little or no 'stable plat form' time. "A modern fighter has about 360 times as much of critical flight bomb delivery capacity per man-hoas the heavy bombers of World War II. 6, B-1- 7s. B-1- 7s F-1- targets. "In '43, '44 and '45 we filled the skies over Europe and supporting with and Our allies fighter aircraft had equally effective equipment and equally dedicated men and women. "In the Pacific we hopped from island to island, using these and similar equipment on land, sea, and air. With slow, lumbering aircraft and vast numbers of personnel in the air, on the ground, and at sea, we won a war. "But do we want to go back to those days, trust our individual and national destiny to such crude machines and methods? The men and women of our armed forces are neither less nor more dedicated than their grandfathers and fathers of 45 years ago. But we must give them the latest and best tools to meet any threat." B-17- s, B-24- B-2- s, -P-- 47s, B-2- 6s, P-3- 8s 5s, P-51- s. st B-1- 7s Published by MorMedia, Inc., a private firm in no way connected with the U.S. Air Force, under exclusive written contract with Hill AFB. This commercial enterprise Air Force newspaper is an authorized publication for members of the U.S. military services. Contents of the Hill Top Times are not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Air Force. The appearance of advertisements in this publication, including inserts or supplements, does not constitute endorsement by the Department of the Air Force or MorMedia, Inc. of the products or services advertised. Everything advertised in this publication shall be made available for purchase, use or patronage without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, physical handicap, political affiliation or any other nonmerit factor of the purchaser, user or patron. Editorial content is edited, prepared and provided by the Public Affairs Office of Ogden Air Logistics Center. Hill AFB Editorial Staff: . . . Lt. Col. Larry P. Public Affairs Officer Editor Staff Writers Fraternization: Air Force members must be careful Summers Brent T. Aguirre Chris Baierschmidt Amn. Jay A. Joersz, Charles Freeman Deadlines: Editorial: 4 p.m. Monday week of publication "Around the Hill" items: 10 a.m. Monday week of publication Classified ads: 2 p.m. Wednesday week of Fraternization. Two words often asFraternity sociated with military service, yet with opposite reactions. On the one hand, fraternity elicits thoughts of the demanding life of military service that bonds its members into a family of sorts. On the other hand, fraternization is a topic which causes concern. According to Lt. Col. Lee Johnson, chief of the Air Force's Leadership arid Concepts Branch, "Many in the Air Force find it difficult to discuss and, quite frankly, one of those prickly issues best left alone. However, it is an issue the Air Force cannot afford to ignore." Air Force Regulation 30-- 1 states, "There is a longcustom in the military standing and service that officers shall not fraternize or associate with enlisted members under circumstances that prejudice the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States." However, identification and enforcement of this policy can be an entirely different matter, according to Colonel Johnson. "It can be a matter of judgment," he said. The colonel pointed out that "judgment is required and expected of all military members and is a 'call' members may well have to make." To make that call, Lt. Col. Ron Rakowsky of the Air Force's General Law Division said, "Air Force members must clearly understand two subjects fraternization and professional relationships." Colonel Rakowsky pointed out that under military law, fraternization can only occur between an officer and an enlisted member. Colonel Johnson said, "Obviously, such a relationship would make it difficult for an officer to supervise or lead an enlisted member who is a close ; well-recogniz- ed personal friend or with whom there is a private relationship." He explained that such a situation can lead to favoritism or partiality which simply cannot be tolerated. The colonel added that others observing this relationship may perceive there is favoritism or partiality, whether it exists or not. "Fraternization cannot occur between two officers or between two enlisted members," he said. "Those relationships fall under a broader context relations." Colonel Johnson explained, "Both officers and enlisted members must make sure their personal relationships with others for whom they exercise a supervisory responsibility, or whose duties or assignments they are in a position to influence, do not give the appearance of favoritism, preferential treatment or impropriety." Colonel Rakowsky said, That means members of different grades are expected to maintain proper professional relationships governed by mutual respect, dignity and military courtesy. "Each of us is expected to demonstrate appropriate military bearing and conduct, both on and off duty," he said. Colonel Johnson added that the Air Force policy does not mean officer and enlisted members cannot get together either formally or informally. "Nothing could be further from the truth," the colonel said. "Displaying interest in and concern for your people 'is a natural and required function of leadership." "However," he pointed out, "siTch relationships must maintain a 'clear and proper balance' if the superior is to remain effective and viable." (AFNS) -su- perior-subordinate |