SwiftVets.com

jalexson · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:07 pm Post subject: Death rates SB vs. TANG?

I'm tired of Democrats saying Bush was a coward for serving in TANG rather than going to Viet Nam. I was safer as a postal clerk in the Central Highlands than bush was flying F-102's.

Does anyone have figures on the relative chances of Bush and Kerry getting killed at the time they were serving? Considering the fact that casualties in Vietnam could vary by time and place and Kerry's short tour. The stats related to Kerry should reflect the death rate among Swift Boat OIC's in the areas when and where he was serving.

Similarly the stats for TANG should reflect the period during which Bush was flying. Quality of maintenance and the age of the planes could have impacted the death rates.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain

jataylor11 · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:30 pm Post subject:

No offense to the Swift Vets -- but the answer is easy

How many times did the F102 crash? how often did pilots have to eject? How many F102 pilots died? How many flight hours in F102? How many F102s in the fleet?

vs.

How many Swiftboats? How many missions? How many died on Swift boats?

Yet the comparison fails because the F102s were mechanical failures -- this would be the same as comparing how many were injured or died because of mechanical failures on a Swift Boat versus under enemy fire.

searly · Seaman Recruit Joined: 20 Aug 2004 Posts: 3

If George W. Bush wanted to pick a safe place to sit out the war he probably could have chosen a better spot than the cockpit of an F-102. Flying supersonic jet aircraft is a dangerous business. Similar planes in the period that Bush flew had a fatal pilot accident rate of about one per 40,000 flight hours. Assuming that Bush flew about a thousand hours over his career, this would mean he had a bit over a 2 percent chance of a fatal accident sometime during his service.

About 3.4 million men served in Vietnam, and about 60,000 were killed -- a fatal casualty rate of just under 2 percent.

Now, if you can determine the number of Swift Vets killed in combat (I think I once heard there were 50 or so) and the total number of Swift Vets who served. You could run the numbers.

Regardless, Bush's chances of suffering a casualty based on his flight hours was somewhere around 1-2% and comparable to those who served in Vietnam.

This of course does not take into account the rate of injuries suffered by Swift Vets. They suffered many non-fatal injuries that would not occur in the cockpit of an F-102. In a jet, if you get injured you usually die.

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

When Kerry signed up for Swifts duty, it was one of the safest missions in Vietnam, and after he reported for duty, it became one of the most dangerous. 55 men died on Swifts' missions.

I forget where I got this snippet re: F-102's:

"The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

grandforker · Seaman Recruit Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 44

The one thing I do know is that flying an F-102 in Texas was far more dangerous than protesting Vietnam at Oxford.
_________________
Hard pounding, gentlemen. Let's see who pounds the longest. -- Wellington at Waterloo

ASPB · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:30 pm Post subject:

Hammer2 · PO2 Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 387 Location: Texas

Here is a link to an excellent article about Bush and the F102:

http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html

Here is a link to the USAF Museum F102 page:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f102.htm
_________________
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" - Thomas Jefferson
"An armed society is a polite society" - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until someone tries to take it away." -- Thomas Jefferson

BuffaloJack · Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:15 am Post subject:

The PCFs weren't bulletproof. Charlie could shoot at us from behind trees and fallen logs and lots of other places. Normally we just shot back at the bushes that looked promising. PCFs weren't armored either. The sides of the boat would deflect a bullet about as well as a paper target would. You haven't lived until you've seen bullet holes appear in the sides of the boat right next to where you're standing.

Coastal duty is what Kerry thought he was getting into. River duty in Charlie's neighborhood is what he got.

As bad as us Navy Swiftees had it, the Coast Guard, who were there before the Navy had the highest per capita casualty rate of all services that were in the Viet Nam theater of operations. It seemed that if a mission was going to be especially dangerous, the Coasties got it. The Coasties had the river and inland water training that the Navy lacked and they more or less paved the way for us, until we could come up to speed.

My hat's always off to the Coasties. They were very much forgotten in the river warfare accounts. And many of them were Swiftees.

As far as an F102 goes, the skin of that aircraft is only 40 thousandth of an inch thick aluminum. Will stop a bullet or rocket about as well as a PCF will. Also, it's a flying gas tank.

I think both swiftboat and F102 personnel were equally at risk when they went into bad neighborhoods. I was on PCFs and when you went on a mission there was never any talk about other GIs having it easier or worse that us. We took what we were dealt and that was that. The F102 pilots were probably of the same mind.

jalexson · Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:23 am Post subject:

GT · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 90

BuffaloJack: where did you get your info that the Coast Guard had the highest per capita casualty rate of all services in the Vietnam theater?

Misty · Lieutenant Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 223

President Bush was doing missions in Canada. Not likely to get shot down, but I would rather be in a swift boat! Smile

_________________
Misty
----------
Dad was in the Navy Pacific Fleet
Brother was on the USS Regulus - Vietnam
Husband was AirForce 3rd (34th) Tactical Fighter Wing - Security Police Bien Hoa Vietnam

F. Rottles · Seaman Recruit Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 17

Admiral Zumwalt estimated that,

PigBoatAndy · Former Member Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Posts: 37

jimlarsen · Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:38 pm Post subject:

From the link provided by Hammer2
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html

Boundless · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 93

I looked into this some time ago, from the perspective of:
what were the expectations of GWB & JfK when they enlisted.

When GWB enlisted, the F-102A was being used in combat
in RVN, and was just coming off a terrible safety record.
GW's unit was in RVN. He probably expected to be flying
a dangerous airplane, and that he could expect to be sent
to RVN.

As luck would have it, he ended up flying a desk in GA,
despite a reported attempt to get an RVN assignment,
even if it meant retraining on some other a/c type. I'm
told that during the years Bush was in, only 8 pilots died
in F-102As, so it ended up being safer than he might
have expected at the outset. But signing up to be a pilot
in any service is a dumb place to "hide" from danger.
Indeed, if the story of Barnes "helping" GW get into the
TANG was true, then Barnes must have been trying to
get GW killed, based on the situation at the time.

Kerry signed up in the USNR, and found himself in the blue
water Navy, far from direct combat risk, which may well
have been his intention (based on later admissions in
news interviews). When he transferred to PCFs, they were
doing coastal Market Time. I suspect that whatever hazard
MT represented, the JFK-PT-109 connection was
irresistible to someone who literally saw himself as JFK-2.

As luck would have it, JfK found himself doing SEALORD,
which was very dangerous indeed. Oops. This is not to
plan. A man could get killed. Little wonder that he figured
out how to game the medal system and flee within a few
months.

The "hazard" expectations (motives) for these two gents
would seem to be have been opposites at the outset,
and opposite at the outcomes. I don't know that we can
today nail it down mathematically.