Soccer War War Birds

[Bill Greenwood]

Some seem to feel that bcause Bob Love was a fine pilot he could not be mistaken or wrong. Wasn't Duke Cunningham a fine pilot, and also not to be taken at face value? Didn't Yeager claim to have shot up tanks and left them burning, despite not having cannons, and Bud Anderson later set the story straight. It should be that the facts, if they exist, are the deciding factor. But what does it matter, no one becomes a better person because he flew an airplane well, even in combat. I knew Bob a little, not enough to say if I ever heard of such a story.

[Jack Cook]

Some seem to feel that bcause Bob Love was a fine pilot he could not be mistaken or wrong.

Actually Bill my only point was that taking someone you don't know and have never met who indeed was a real gentlemen and outstanding pilot. Then describing him has immoral simply because you don't agree with his version of what he accomplished. Is not only immature BS but quite possibly immoral.
For some odd reason Randy Haskin was able to say roughly the same thing. Except he did it in a non-confrontational mature manner

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Duke Cunningham = Politician. I think that sums up his integrity.

[RickH]

You keep painting with that broad of a brush, John-Paul you're going to start pissing some other people off. Maybe it's time to let this one go.

[Raven]

I've not posted for a while, but I couldn't let this go by.

Clearly the concept of the 'line book' and the reason for its existence is alien to some.

We are all laughing here at the ignorance of the brilliant record keepers and researchers such as yourselves. Very typical of the type to not believe something happened unless someone records it correctly. Do you really expect the Honduras Gov. to admit getting their Asses shot off? I suppose his six Migs were a figment of his imagination as well. I know exactly who Randy is talking about and Bob told the story of him getting the heck out of there (don't blame him) after the first bullets flew for years before Bob passed away.
Many of us know these real stories..... told from the actual participants. It's just a waste of time sharing them with people who are only interested in stories matching the "paperwork" they read in their "research" of other people's Histories. I could share with you lots of stories R.T. Smith used to tell or Dr. Don Berlin used to tell...... all in our living room over dinner and cocktails.. but Those stories aren't recorded anywhere..so I guess everything they shared with all of us was just in our/their imagination as well.

Speak only for yourself, rather than assuming you are agreed with or supported.

Shooting the breeze over cocktails (an alcoholic stimulant, of course) is where the real history is? Sure, there's some tales that only come out there, and aren't recorded in the official histories; but that's the exception - the majority are simply good yarns, and should be taken as such.

The history of air combat as told after cocktails by fighter pilots would be interesting, but hardly definitive. There's a lot more to it than the guy at the pole necessarily knows, and a fighter pilot's job is to fight, while a historian's is to try and understand history. Demanding anyone follow your orthodoxy is a clear indicator of not being on secure ground.

I don't think anyone's 'disrespecting' Bob Love, but your need to put him on a pedestal on the basis of round-the-fire tales does him a disservice and also to yourself. It's telling that apart from demanding that everyone take your recollection of Bob's story at face value, you've failed to provide a single scrap of evidence and resorted to name calling.

Frankly, I doubt even you do business on the basis of someone being entirely trustworthy and 'the real deal' when the evidence (absent and present) points entirely the other way.

As a matter of fact Bob said he went down there because he wanted an "even dozen" in what he called "The Sport of Kings". He already had 6 kills in Korea when he went down there and his motivation was not the money. He was one of the best mustang pilots ever and an F-86 ace to boot...... he wanted the action. Those who knew Bob know that he was the real deal no bull-**** fighter pilot....

He may be a great pilot, and a great pilot for his country, but when he decided to fly as a mercenary, he put himself outside many people's idea of acceptable behaviour.

A mercenary pilot is someone who accepts money to shoot down aircraft for a country other than his own, and most probably to kill for cash. There are times when it is justified to fight for a worthy cause, but, by your statement here, this is clearly not one of those. Bob Love's combat career in US service is creditable; people may find his being a gun for hire a hero, but that's not one that's universally accepted, in this case I believe it reprehensible, as he was just looking to increase his tally - which if he had wouldn't be that of a (creditable) serving US airman anyway.

As to "because he wanted an "even dozen" in what he called "The Sport of Kings"." - AFAIK, there's never been a Royal who flew as a fighter pilot, and while it lightens an unpleasant (but often necessary) duty to refer to the job as 'sport' it indicates a shortfall in understanding.

but if in fact Capt. Robert J. Love ever made such claim, I can only think he was manipulating facts, which needless to say, is morally incorrect, dishonest

That statement is pure bull! Many pilots have overclaimed in the history of air-to-air combat. That doesn't in any way make them immoral. The fact is you weren't there and didn't know Bob Love so you're in no position to judge the man in such a way. Bob's aviation achievements and adventures are things you can only dream of and imagine. He was a truly fine man, a great pilot and a real gentlemen. I believe Bob Hoover said that Bob Love was the finest Mustang pilot ever....period!

To take some hangar flying as either gospel truth or immoral is silly, as are some of the responses here.

We all 'judge' each and every day; the good thing is we can't force our view to be accepted; that way is totalitarian. We are entitled to an opinion on the matter; some believe an opinion based on evidence worth respecting, others that someone's characters is a good guide - I find it interesting that there's a clear conflict of character and fact.

If there's no evidence for something, where there should be (such as lost aircraft, bounties claimed and paid, and kills written up by the victors) there it's justifiable to ask for that evidence. The participant's character and previous record are relevant but don't outweigh the howling silence of the lack of proof.

As to 'over-claiming in combat' as Jack knows, that's indeed common; but in a situation where opposing forces didn't even see each other, and when a pilot's on a bounty, that's a quite different case, than mistakes in a melee.

The sturm und drang posts demanding that all bow before Bob's prowess are thankfully risible, rather than dangerous, but it was to stop that kind of ersatz history of the powerful over the weak that W.W.II was fought. It's doubtful Bob would find the demands on his behalf useful.

Feel free to prove the story; abuse or demands for respect (which is earned, not demanded) will be taken as a lack of more solid arguments. I have no idea what happened, but I do know who is convincing and who isn't, here, so far.

Regards,

[John-Curtiss Paul]

Broad brush....politics? How uncommon. I really could not care less who's feathers get ruffled.

[Tulio]

I have just read here, some compelling arguments for the return to oral history. The heck with investigation and research; the heck with printers and archives! The heck with museums, since we are on the same line of thought.

"Because I said so, that's why!" : )


Saludos,


Tulio

[Jones Santana]

All three sources -- two of them firsthand -- say there was one there and operating during the week of the 14th.

YES, there was one B-26 when the war began. The bomber was not used because it didnt have any guns installed yet.

[jaldo]

Randy
One of the most discussed topics about the 69 conflict is the case of the C-47 FAS-101. This aircraft was reported landing in El Salvador with only one engine running and sprayed with bullet holes.Apparently none of the crewmembers (3) were hurt.
Is it possible for this type of aircraft to fly from 10.000 ft. for about 50 NM on one engine and the other one out and unable to feather?
Did any of the mercenary pilots talked about seeing this aircraft damaged near Ilopango?

[EDowning]

Raven Wrote:

A mercenary pilot is someone who accepts money to shoot down aircraft for a country other than his own, and most probably to kill for cash. There are times when it is justified to fight for a worthy cause, but, by your statement here, this is clearly not one of those. Bob Love's combat career in US service is creditable; people may find his being a gun for hire a hero, but that's not one that's universally accepted, in this case I believe it reprehensible, as he was just looking to increase his tally - which if he had wouldn't be that of a (creditable) serving US airman anyway.

Just curious - would anyone consider the service of the AVG to be mercenary?

[RickH]

Eric, they certainly recd extra pay for any confirmed kills, and they were on the payroll of a foreign govt. The big difference is that they were covertly sanctioned by their own govt and promised a return to their original rank and branch of service if they so chose.

[Stoney]

I don't know if Bob Love ever shot down anything in that SA war, but I do know he was there and a good friend of Archie Baldocchi. I have had dinner with both and crewed for Bob at Reno for four years. I heard both talk about being there and both flying doing that war.

[T J Johansen]

If I remember correctly there is a photo in Hagedorn/ Dienst's Latin American Mustang book of Bob Love sitting on the wing of a Salvadorean 51.

Eric, they certainly recd extra pay for any confirmed kills, and they were on the payroll of a foreign govt. The big difference is that they were covertly sanctioned by their own govt and promised a return to their original rank and branch of service if they so chose.

And given that their own government had not yet declared war on the Japanese by that stage, it can safely be argued that they were mercenaries!

T J

[RickH]

Using that strict definition TJ wouldn't that also make the Americans who joined the RAF prior to American involvement in the war mercenaries ?

[T J Johansen]

Using that strict definition TJ wouldn't that also make the Americans who joined the RAF prior to American involvement in the war mercenaries ?

If you're fighting in someone else's war, and if you get paid for it, yes I would say that is the case.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mer·ce·nar·y /ˈmɜrsəˌnɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-suh-ner-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -nar·ies.
–adjective
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
–noun
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.

T J