Bob Klahn -> Ed Hulett wrote:

 BK>>>>>  Just like they taught us how to load bullets into
the clips for
 BK>>>>>  the M16. You wouldn't know about that, though.

 EH>>>> That wasn't his claim. His claim was that he hand loaded
 EH>>>> the ammo belt into the plane itself.

 BK>>>  I do not recall him saying that.

 EH>> Of course you don't. You ignore all of Sauer's lies.

 BK>  Your lies bury anything else too deep.

That's a lie.

 BK>>>  You would hand load the belt
 BK>>>  into the plane. Into the guns, to be more specific.

 EH>> The plane is the gun (notice gun singular) and Sauer

 BK>  It is? No rockets? No bombs?

Where do you get the idea it has no missiles or bombs?

It is common knowledge that the A-10 was built around the gun. That doesn't
exclude the hard points for various missiles and bombs. It was built for
close ground support and anti-tank purposes and the gun is an important
part of that.

 BK>  Why is your claim hard to believe?

Only an idiot would ask that question.

 EH>> claimed to have hand cranked the belt into the gun. The gun
 EH>> has a motor feed and is almost impossible to load by hand.

 BK>  The motor feed is for feeding the belt into the firing chamber,
 BK>  isn't it?

It is also used for feeding the belt (chain) into the weapon by locking the
firing pin back so it won't fire.

 BK>  And you have how much experience on any military aircraft
 BK>  weaponry?

One does not need military experience in order to know that. All one needs
do is read Janes or some other authority on aircraft.

 BK>>>  On a A WW2
 BK>>>  bomber the gunner could load the belts into the gun.

 EH>> The WWII bomber had M2 .50 cal machine guns. The A-10 has a
 EH>> .30MM chain fed Gatling style gun. The .50 cal. is roughly
 EH>> 12MM and the weapon can be loaded by a single person if
 EH>> needed. The 30MM requires crew of 3 to 4 with the
 EH>> assistance of a motorized auto-loader.

 BK>  And you have how much experience loading 30MM gatling un?

I don't need any experience, just the ability to read.

 BK>>>  In a gunship the gunner can load the ammo into the gun. On a fighter
 BK>>>  or modern bomber the ammo has to be loaded by ground crews
 BK>>>  before takeoff.

 EH>> The A-10 being a good example.

 BK>  I just said that.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The A-10 is a good example of needing a ground crew.

 BK>>>  However, I recall him mentioning a crank winder for the belt,
 BK>>>  which would be used when preparing the belt for loading, not for
 BK>>>  actually loading the gun.

 EH>> Again, you selectively "remember" what he said. There is
 EH>> nothing to "wind" before loading the gun.

 BK>  Are you saying they assemble the belt as they put it into the
 BK>  plane?

No. I didn't say that at all.

 BK>  ...

 EH>>>> Not in Basic. He didn't leave Texas until he was discharged
 EH>>>> and AIT for aircraft weapons mechanic was in Colorado.

 BK>>>  Could be. That I don't know, can you prove it?

 EH>> It has been pointed out repeatedly and you refuse to admit

 BK>  You may have said it repeatedly, but saying something doesn't
 BK>  make it true. I ask for proof and your proof is that you said
 BK>  it. You think you are God or something?

No, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you by several people.

 BK>  Or just not yet?

Just not yet, what?

 BK>  ...

 BK>>>  However, if they have a static aircraft, or access to flyable
 BK>>>  aircraft, you just may train on specific aircraft because that
 BK>>>  is what they have.

 EH>> But that didn't happen since Sauer never left Lackland by
 EH>> his own admission.

 BK>  Prove it.

Sauer has said so repeatedly. Your silly "prove it" is nothing
more than diversion.

 BK>>>  BTW, airframe applies to A&Ps, not weapon's mechanics.

 EH>> Red Herring.

 BK>  No, minor correction.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 BK>>>  I have seen that the Colorado base did have static A-10s, and an
 BK>>>  A-10 flight assigned. I have not found out exactly when, but it
 BK>>>  was around that time.

 EH>> 1978? The A-10 was only 3 years old at that time.

 BK>  Yes, they tend to wreck planes more often when they are new.

That wasn't the case with the A-10.

 BK>>>  In radio school we learned about all types of radios, but we had
 BK>>>  two UHF, one VHF, and one HF radio, and on RDF we actually used
 BK>>>  for training. We later had to learn the specific radios as
 BK>>>  needed. Which, BTW, were taught in courses at the bases.

 EH>> Good for you.

 BK>  Puts me way up on you.

In your dreams.

 BK>  ...

 BK>>>  On the contrary, I do know what I am talking about. I am poking
 BK>>>  holes in what you say. You obviously are shooting off about
 BK>>>  things you have zero knowledge of.

 EH>> You think you are poking holes, but you are only convincing
 EH>> yourself of that fantasy.

 BK>  You claim your statements as proof. That's the fantasy.

I never made any such claim.

 BK>>>  I was there, you weren't. I know, you don't.

 EH>> You weren't with Sauer. You don't know what you are talking
 EH>> about WRT his short service.

 BK>  Neither do you.

Actually I do. I've paid attention all these years to his claims and have
seen his DD-214.

 BK> But I know one hell of a lot more about service
 BK>  in the Air Force, or the military in general.

Keep telling yourself that. It's all you have.

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer
Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 385029

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925)