Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Airborne Operations
Message-ID: <1990Jul10.025028.10585@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 10 Jul 90 02:50:28 GMT
References: <1990Jul5.020552.14422@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul6.032827.27916@cbnews.att.com>,<1990Jul8.053535.8271@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1990Jul8.053535.8271@cbnews.att.com>, eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes:
:
:> much lower than openly thought.  Yeah, there are casualties and equip-
:> ment malfunctions, but the current safety rate is something over 99%. 
:> That one percent of casualties is almost entirely broken bones from poor
:> landings (feet apart, knee landings, missed points of contact).  
:
:this is only true of *training* operations.  read "A Bridge Too Far" and
:see waht happened to the Brits at Arnhem.  The 173rd also made a drop
:in VietNam.  see if you can find anything on that operation.

Um, Grenada and Panama are probably different, equipment, training, and
situtation-wise, than any WW II drop and in Vietnam. Hopefully, the
current statistics are from 1980 onward...

:do you still wear *baby-blue berets* <snicker-snicker>?

And why are you trying to aggreviate a man who carries around an M-16 as
a part of his daily job?