Whiteman Air Force Base, Minuteman HAER No. Missile Launch Facility

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Whiteman Air Force Base, Minuteman HAER No. Missile Launch Facility Whiteman Air Force Base, Minuteman HAER No. M0-88 Missile Launch Facility Trainer T-12 (Whiteman Air Force Base, Facility 1100) Northeast of Oscar-01 Missile Alert Facility '~&m.,,..A,,L;r_J'3? r c. e ..~.B as e Johnson County Vicinity of Knob Noster Missouri PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Rocky Mountain System Support Office National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Whiteman Air Force Base, Minuteman Missile Launch Facility Trainer T-12 (Whiteman Air Force Base, Facility 1100) HAER No. M0-88 Location: Northeast of Oscar-01 Missile Alert Facility Whiteman Air Force Base Vicinity of Knob Noster Johnson County Missouri Construction Date: 1967 Owner: U;S. Air Force Historic Use: Minuteman Missile Launch Facility Trainer Present Use: Abandoned Significance: Cold War missile development in the United States led to the necessity for a more rapid, yet economic system of retaliation than provided in the earlier Atlas and Titan systems. The Air Force found the solution in the Minuteman series, a solid-fuel missile that could be launched from a remote center having control over a network of silos spread over a wide geographical area. The Launch Facility Trainer (LFT), replicating a silo in the field, provided a full-scale model where some 400 missile maintenance personnel honed their skills in both routine and emergency procedures vital to the readiness of the system. Prepared by: Douglas McChristian Historian, Fort Laramie National Historic Site, Wyoming Date: December 1996 HAER No. M0-88 Page2 Introduction For nearly half a century the United States and the Soviet Union were poised in a deadly contest that risked the very future of the human race. From the end of World War II until the collapse of communism in 1991, the so-called superpowers stood at the brink of nuclear holocaust. Knowing full-well the consequences of such a conflict, the opponents confronted each other in a test of wills, each side combining technological advancements with the economic muscle to implement increasingly complex and effective weapons in the hope of gaining superiority. The era witnessed the creation of nuclear weapons with unparalleled capability for mass destruction. More than an arms rac_e, it was a "cold war" of political and geographical maneuvering, of espionage and the threat of the use of arms. Hanging in this delicate balance was the pervading fear of nuclear Armageddon. Almost from its inception in the wake of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet communistic system posed a subtle ideological and economic threat to the Western world. Yet it went widely unrecognized among political leaders in the West, and even less so among the general populace. For a time prior to World War II, the newly-created Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) witnessed almost continual internal power struggles during the formative period of societal restructuring. Thus preoccupied at home, the Soviets were in no position to actively extend their doctrine beyond their own borders for nearly two decades. Nevertheless, the essential differences between the philosophies represented in capitalistic and communistic systems polarized Eastern and Western nations, thereby setting the stage for an inevitable collision. While an armed conflict might have resulted in any event, German chancellor Adolph Hitler hastened war from another quarter with his own quest for global supremacy in the late 1930s. Germany's military alliances with Italy and Japan accelerated a collective plan for world conquest with alarming rapidity. An overly-confident Hitler violated his earlier non-aggression treaty with Russia and in so doing created for himself a two-front war. This proved to be a fatal strategic error. By taking on both the free world and the communists simultaneously, and especially by underestimating the strength and resolve of the Soviets, Hitler all but sealed his own fate. The Cold War that developed after 1945 had its origins in the so-called Grand Alliance among Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union. With both the Russians and the western allies threatened by a common enemy, the two sides combined resources in a partnership that was as tenuous as it was unnatural. Nevertheless, Hitler's lust for world domination was perceived among many in the West as an evil infmitely greater than that posed by the communists at the time. The Allies were therefore willing to risk entering into what all of the leaders recognized was merely a marriage of convenience for the purpose of prosecuting an exhaustive war against Germany. Sometimes stormy, always mutually mistrustful, the relationship barely survived the duration of the war. Cooling of U.S.- Soviet Relations The smoldering mistrust between the western powers and the Soviet Union became openly evident shortly after the Allied victory in 1945. Although the Americans had embarked upon a nuclear research program on the eve of the war, they had avoided sharing this information with the Russians, whereas the British were kept fully apprised of U.S. progress in this field. When in July 1945, American scientists HAER No. M0-88 Page3 secretly reported to President Harry S. Truman that they had developed an atomic bomb - one that worked - Truman chose not to inform the Soviets. Hedging his bets for the post-war era, Truman confided, "I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." 1 Truman's secrecy was based on the premise that a confrontation with the Soviets was only a matter of time, and that sole possession of the bomb would be a trump card in the hands of the British and Americans. Truman and his close advisors reasoned that the Soviets could be controlled by the knowledge that the Americans not only possessed such a weapon, but also had the fortitude to use it. Although it was not revealed at the time, this was key to Truman's decision to use the nuclear device against Japan. Dropping the bomb would at once end the war, saving many American lives - and it would send an unequivocal message to the Russians. Within a month after the successful detonation of a test device, a lone B-29 bomber winged its way over Hiroshima, Japan to drop the first of two atomic bombs. Nagasaki shared a similar fate a few days later. Predictably, the awesome power of the bombs, coupled with a latent Russian declaration of war against Japan, finally convinced the Japanese that further resistance was pointless. The Russians were dumbfounded that their allies possessed such unheard-of power. The Soviets, now extremely vulnerable, considered themselves betrayed by the United States for having withheld such critical information. The lines were clearly drawn for future relations. Following the formal surrender of Japan just weeks later, the wartime alliance quickly dissolved. Fearing for the security of his own nation, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin directed his scientists to, "Provide us with atomic weapons in the shortest possible time ... The balance has been destroyed. Provide the bomb ... it will remove a great danger from us. "2 Chilling as Stalin's announcement may have been, United States military and political advisors scoffed at his ability to actually produce an atomic bomb. Some American scientists joked that, "the Russians could not surreptitiously introduce nuclear bombs into the United States because they had not yet been able to perfect a suitcase. "3 Many American scientists predicted that the Russians were still five to fifteen years away from developing an atomic bomb of their own. There was concern early on in the West that atomic weapons should be controlled lest they fall into the wrong hands, namely those of the Soviet Union. The newly-formed United Nations briefly considered a U.S.-backed plan, known as the Acheson-Lilienthal proposal, calling for a measured transition to international control of nuclear technology and weapons production. While the theory may have been sound enough, the practicality of the plan was questioned by Bernard Baruch, American delegate to the 1 John F. Lauber and Jeffrey A. Hess, Glenn L. Martin Company Titan Test Facilities, Denver, Colorado. (Minneapolis: Hess, Roise, and Co., 1993), p. 10 (hereafter cited as Martin Test Facilities). 2 Karen Lewis, Katherine J. Roxlau, et. al., "Historic Context and Methodology for Assessment." A Systemic Study of Air Combat Command Cold War Material Culture. (Fort Worth: U.S. Air Force: 1995), Vol. I, p. 27 (hereinafter cited as, Systemic Study of ACC Material Culture with volume number). 3 Lauber and Hess, Martin Test Facilitie~ pp. 15-16. HAER No. M0-88 Page4 U.N. Atomic Energy Commission. Baruch feared that the Soviets, who possessed an all-powerful veto on the Security Council, would nullify any attempts to inspect their facilities. Too, Baruch was concerned that the Soviets had far more to gain initially by such an agreement, since the United States would be obligated to share its hard-earned classified research. Influenced by Baruch's convincing arguments against the plan, President Truman finally responded that, "We should not under any circumstances give away our gun until we are sure the rest of the world can't arm against us. "4 Baruch subsequently offered an alternative proposal founded upon the same premise of international control. But, there would be no vetoes, thus ensuring openness by both sides. Predictably, the Russians rejected the plan and pressed forward in their program to develop an atomic bomb of their own. Meantime, the Americans secretly began work on an even more powerful hydrogen bomb that Truman calculated would be in place to negate the Soviet's atom bomb. The stage was thus set for an escalating arms race. Fueling the post-war military situation was the vacuum of a collapsed European economy left temporarily void of international investment.
Recommended publications
  • The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay: the Crew
    AFA’s Enola Gay Controversy Archive Collection www.airforcemag.com The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay From the Air Force Association’s Enola Gay Controversy archive collection Online at www.airforcemag.com The Crew The Commander Paul Warfield Tibbets was born in Quincy, Ill., Feb. 23, 1915. He joined the Army in 1937, became an aviation cadet, and earned his wings and commission in 1938. In the early years of World War II, Tibbets was an outstanding B-17 pilot and squadron commander in Europe. He was chosen to be a test pilot for the B-29, then in development. In September 1944, Lt. Col. Tibbets was picked to organize and train a unit to deliver the atomic bomb. He was promoted to colonel in January 1945. In May 1945, Tibbets took his unit, the 509th Composite Group, to Tinian, from where it flew the atomic bomb missions against Japan in August. After the war, Tibbets stayed in the Air Force. One of his assignments was heading the bomber requirements branch at the Pentagon during the development of the B-47 jet bomber. He retired as a brigadier general in 1966. In civilian life, he rose to chairman of the board of Executive Jet Aviation in Columbus, Ohio, retiring from that post in 1986. At the dedication of the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar- Hazy Center in December 2003, the 88-year-old Tibbets stood in front of the restored Enola Gay, shaking hands and receiving the high regard of visitors. (Col. Paul Tibbets in front of the Enola Gay—US Air Force photo) The Enola Gay Crew Airplane Crew Col.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundations of US Air Doctrine
    DISCLAIMER This study represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Air University Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE) or the Department of the Air Force. This manuscript has been reviewed and cleared for public release by security and policy review authorities. iii Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Watts, Barry D. The Foundations ofUS Air Doctrine . "December 1984 ." Bibliography : p. Includes index. 1. United States. Air Force. 2. Aeronautics, Military-United States. 3. Air warfare . I. Title. 11. Title: Foundations of US air doctrine . III. Title: Friction in war. UG633.W34 1984 358.4'00973 84-72550 355' .0215-dc 19 ISBN 1-58566-007-8 First Printing December 1984 Second Printing September 1991 ThirdPrinting July 1993 Fourth Printing May 1996 Fifth Printing January 1997 Sixth Printing June 1998 Seventh Printing July 2000 Eighth Printing June 2001 Ninth Printing September 2001 iv THE AUTHOR s Lieutenant Colonel Barry D. Watts (MA philosophy, University of Pittsburgh; BA mathematics, US Air Force Academy) has been teaching and writing about military theory since he joined the Air Force Academy faculty in 1974 . During the Vietnam War he saw combat with the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubon, Thailand, completing 100 missions over North Vietnam in June 1968. Subsequently, Lieutenant Colonel Watts flew F-4s from Yokota AB, Japan, and Kadena AB, Okinawa. More recently, he has served as a military assistant to the Director of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and with the Air Staff's Project CHECKMATE.
    [Show full text]
  • Brigadier General William R. Brooksher
    BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM R. BROOKSHER Retired Aug. 1, 1981. Brigadier General William R. Brooksher is Air Force chief of security police and commander of the Air Force Office of Security Police, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. He manages the employment of more than 40,000 security police deployed throughout the world. General Brooksher was born in Turkey, Ark., in 1930. He graduated from Yellville-Summit High School, Yellville, Ark., in 1948 and received his bachelor's degree from the University of Colorado in 1958 and his master's degree in business administration from the University of Missouri in 1970. He is also a graduate of the Air Command and Staff College and the National War College. General Brooksher entered the Air Force in January 1950as an enlisted member. He served as an instructor at the clerk typist technical school and as sergeant major in the Department of Administrative and Supply Training at Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo. In March 1953 he entered Officer Candidate School at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in September 1953. He next attended the Personnel Officer School at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. After completion in January 1954, he was assigned to the 75th Air Installation Squadron, Chinhae Korea, as adjutant. He later assumed command of the unit. General Brooksher was adjutant for the 6th Weather Squadron (Mobile), Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., from March 1955 until December 1956. For the next 18 months he was a student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., in the Air Force Institute of Technology program.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 0511Bases.Pdf
    Guide to Air Force Installations Worldwide ■ 2011 USAF Almanac Active Duty Installations Abbreviations ABW/G Air Base Wing/Group This section includes Air Force owned and operated command: ACC. Major units/missions: 9th ACW/S Air Control Wing/Squadron facilities around the world. (It also lists the former RW (ACC), ISR and UAV operations; 548th ISRG AFB Air Force Base USAF bases now under other service leadership (AFISRA), DCGS; 940th Wing (AFRC), C2, ISR, AFDW Air Force District of Washington as joint bases.) It is not a complete list of units and UAV operations. History: opened October AFGLSC Air Force Global Logistics Support Center by base. Many USAF installations host numerous 1942 as Army’s Camp Beale. Named for Edward F. AFISRA Air Force ISR Agency tenants, not just other USAF units but DOD, joint, Beale, a former Navy officer who became a hero AFNWC Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center AFOSI Air Force Office of Special Investigations other service, and federal and civil entities. of the Mexican-American War and early devel- AFRICOM US Africa Command oper of California, as well as a senior appointee/ AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory Altus AFB, Okla. 73523-5000. Nearest city: Al- diplomat for four Presidents. Transferred to USAF AFS Air Force Station tus. Phone: 580-482-8100. Owning command: 1948. Designated AFB April 1951. AFWA Air Force Weather Agency AETC. Unit/mission: 97th AMW (AETC), training. AGOW Air Ground Operations Wing History: activated January 1943. Inactivated Brooks City-Base, Tex., 78235-5115. Nearest ALC Air Logistics Center May 1945. Reactivated August 1953. city: San Antonio.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Won the Cold War? a Learning Packet for Secondary Level Study
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 464 887 SO 033 846 TITLE Who Won the Cold War? A Learning Packet for Secondary Level Study. INSTITUTION Kansas Univ., Lawrence. Center for Russian and East European Studies. PUB DATE 2000-00-00 NOTE 73p. AVAILABLE FROM Center for Russian and East European Studies, 320 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-7574. Tel: 785-864-4236; Fax: 785-864-3800; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.ukans.edu/-crees/. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Curriculum Enrichment; Foreign Countries; High Schools; *International Relations; Korean War; *Models; *Modern History; Primary Sources; *World Affairs; *World History IDENTIFIERS Cold War; United States; USSR ABSTRACT Realizing that the Cold War is a topic that often is neglected as time runs short at the end of a school year, a group of University of Kansas (Lawrence) educators sought to create effective classroom materials for secondary/community college instructors to teach about the Cold War. The group's main goal was to create a flexible model that encouraged study of the topic for the amount of time available. This Cold War learning packet provides materials and directions to guide students through a research and decision-making activity. Following a brief review of the Cold War period, the materials in the packet lead students to analyze a key Cold War event from both a Soviet and U.S. point of view, using a variety of primary sources. The key event is analyzed using the packet's Cold War Def Con model.
    [Show full text]
  • House Resolution No. 2966
    SECOND REGULAR SESSION House Resolution No. 2966 98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE HOSKINS. 6915H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk WHEREAS, the F-35A Lightning II is the Air Force's newest generation fighter that 2 represents an enduring, long-term mission for the Air Force; and 3 4 WHEREAS, the United States Air Force announced in April 2016 it will be considering 5 where to locate its first Air Force Reserve F-35A Lightning II mission; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the Air Force announced it will consider four locations — Davis-Monthan 8 AFB, Arizona; Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort 9 Worth, Texas; and Whiteman AFB, Missouri — as candidates to host the Air Force Reserve F- 10 35A; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Air Force expects to select the preferred and reasonable alternatives in 13 the fall of 2016 with aircraft slated to begin arriving at the first location by the summer of 2023; 14 and 15 16 WHEREAS, the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing currently operates the A-10 17 close air support fighter aircraft and has served numerous deployments with the utmost 18 distinction and dedication; and 19 20 WHEREAS, 2023 is when the Air Force Reserve is planning to first operate the F-35 21 which extends well beyond the planned mission conversion from the currently operated A-10 22 Thunderbolt; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the state of Missouri is committed to ensuring that the incredible men and 25 women of the 442nd Air Force Reserve Fighter Wing have an enduring mission; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the state
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Scrapbook Compiled by Frances Mckenney, Assistant Managing Editor
    Cold War Scrapbook Compiled by Frances McKenney, Assistant Managing Editor The peace following World War II was short- lived. Soviet forces never went home, kept occupied areas under domination, and threatened free nations worldwide. By 1946, Winston Churchill had declared, “An iron curtain has descended across the conti- nent.” Thus began a 45-year struggle between the diametrically opposed worldviews of the US and the Soviet Union. In 1948, the USSR cut off land access to free West Berlin, launch- ing the first major “battle” of the Cold War: the Berlin Airlift. Through decades of changes in strategy, tactics, locations, and technology, the Air Force was at the forefront. The Soviet Union was contained, and eventually, freedom won out. Bentwaters. Bitburg. Clark. Loring. Soes- terberg. Suwon. Wurtsmith—That so many Cold War bases are no longer USAF instal- lations is a tribute to how the airmen there did their jobs. While with the 333rd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., in 1975, Capt. Thomas McKee asked a friend to take this “hero shot” of him with an A-7. McKee flew the Corsair II as part of Tactical Air Command, at Myrtle Beach AFB, S.C. He was AFA National President and Chairman of the Board (1998-2002). Assigned to the 1st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron, Beale AFB, Calif., RSO Maj. Thomas Veltri (right) and Maj. Duane Noll prepare for an SR-71 mission from RAF Mildenhall, UK, in the mid- 1980s. Veltri’s most memora- ble Blackbird sortie: “We lost an engine in the Baltic, north of Gotland Island, and ended up at 25,000 feet, with a dozen MiGs chasing us.” Retired Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Dictionary of Air Intelligence
    Historical Dictionaries of Intelligence and Counterintelligence Jon Woronoff, Series Editor 1. British Intelligence, by Nigel West, 2005. 2. United States Intelligence, by Michael A. Turner, 2006. 3. Israeli Intelligence, by Ephraim Kahana, 2006. 4. International Intelligence, by Nigel West, 2006. 5. Russian and Soviet Intelligence, by Robert W. Pringle, 2006. 6. Cold War Counterintelligence, by Nigel West, 2007. 7. World War II Intelligence, by Nigel West, 2008. 8. Sexspionage, by Nigel West, 2009. 9. Air Intelligence, by Glenmore S. Trenear-Harvey, 2009. Historical Dictionary of Air Intelligence Glenmore S. Trenear-Harvey Historical Dictionaries of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, No. 9 The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham, Maryland • Toronto • Plymouth, UK 2009 SCARECROW PRESS, INC. Published in the United States of America by Scarecrow Press, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.scarecrowpress.com Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom Copyright © 2009 by Glenmore S. Trenear-Harvey All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Trenear-Harvey, Glenmore S., 1940– Historical dictionary of air intelligence / Glenmore S. Trenear-Harvey. p. cm. — (Historical dictionaries of intelligence and counterintelligence ; no. 9) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-0-8108-5982-1 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8108-5982-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-8108-6294-4 (eBook) ISBN-10: 0-8108-6294-8 (eBook) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The 341St Missile Wing History
    341st Missile Wing History HISTORY OF THE 341 MISSILE WING World War II Bomb Group The 341st Missile Wing began as the 341st Bombardment Group (Medium) in the China-Burma- India (CBI) Theater of World War II. The Group was activated at Camp Malir in Karachi, India on 15 September 1942. The unit was one of the first bomber units in the CBI; being equipped with B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, which were shipped from the United States to Karachi. The aircraft were readied for flight operations by Air Technical Service Command at Karachi Air Depot and dispatched to Chakulia Airfield, now in Bangladesh in December. The group was formed with two bomb squadrons (11th, 22d) which had been attached to the 7th Bombardment Group since May 1942, and two newly activated squadrons (490th and 491st). The 11th Bomb Squadron was already in China, having flown combat missions with China Air Task Force since 1 July 1942. Planes and crews of the 22nd had been flying recon and tactical missions over north and central Burma, also since July. The group entered combat early in 1943 and operated chiefly against enemy transportation in central Burma until 1944. It bombed bridges, locomotives, railroad yards, and other targets to delay movement of supplies to the Japanese troops fighting in northern Burma. 341st Missile Wing History The 341st Bomb Group usually functioned as if it were two groups and for a time as three. Soon after its activation in September 1942, 341st Bomb Group Headquarters and three of its squadrons, the 22nd, 490th and 491st, were stationed and operating in India under direction of the Tenth Air Force, while the 11th squadron was stationed and operating in China under direction of the "China Air Task Force", which was later reorganized and reinforced to become the Fourteenth Air Force.
    [Show full text]
  • John Edgar Peabody
    Jack R. Miller (192. – 1943) The closest reference to a “Jack R. Miller” whose name appears in Memorial Park in Chula Vista that has yet been found was a “John R. Miller” who listed his home of record as the state of California. The information found on this WWII veteran is therefore furnished. John R. Miller was from California and was a 2nd Lieutenant in the USAAF. His serial number was O-680481. He was assigned to the 525th Bomber Squadron of the 379th Bomber Group (Heavy). On November 29, 1943, he was listed as Missing in Action (MIA), and his name appears on the Missing in Action and Buried at Sea tablets at the Netherlands American Cemetery in Margraten, Netherlands. A brief history of the 525th Bomber Squadron follows: (Reference USAF History WWII for 29 November 1943): EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): VIII Bomber Command Mission 140. 154 of 360 B-17's hit the port of Bremen, Germany and targets of opportunity in the area at 1429-1450 hours; unfavorable cloud conditions and malfunction of blindbombing equipment cause 200+ B-17's to abort; they claim 15-11-10 Luftwaffe aircraft; 13 B-17's are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair and 43 damaged; casualties are 2 KIA, 13 WIA and 131 MIA. The B-17's are escorted by 38 P-38's and 314 P-47's; they claim 15-4-6 Luftwaffe aircraft; 7 P-38's and 9 P-47's are lost; 1 P-47 is damage beyond repair and another damaged; casualties are 1 WIA and 16 MIA.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force Abbreviated Aircraft Accident Investigation Board Report
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ABBREVIATED AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD REPORT MQ-1B, T/N 07-3207 20TH RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON 432D WING CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA LOCATION: CENTCOM AOR DATE OF ACCIDENT: 28 APRIL 2015 BOARD PRESIDENT: LT COL CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN Abbreviated Accident Investigation, conducted pursuant to Chapter 11 of Air Force Instruction 51-503 United States Air Force Abbreviated Accident Investigation Board Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION MQ-1B, T/N 07-3207 CENTCOM AOR 28 April 2015 On 28 April 2015, at approximately 0116 hours Local (L), the mishap remotely piloted aircraft (MRPA), an MQ-1B Predator, tail number 07-3207, assigned to the 432d Wing, Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, and operated by personnel from the 20th Reconnaissance Squadron at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, exited the runway during initial takeoff from an airbase in the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility. The MRPA sustained extensive damage after it exited the runway and came to rest. Damage to the MRPA was estimated at $4.66 million. No injuries, deaths or damage to private property were reported from the mishap. On 27 April 2015, the mishap crew (MC) reported for duty, received a pre-mission brief, and was assigned two missions for their shift. The MC conducted a successful landing of a remotely piloted aircraft for their first mission. The MC stepped for their second mission at approximately 0030L (28 April 2015) to launch the MRPA. After establishing initial link communication with the MRPA on the default ‘wake-up’ frequency, the mishap pilot did not switch to the assigned operating frequency.
    [Show full text]