If a fighter pilots shoots down 5 UAV's?
Leadfoot
Is he an ace?
David E. Powell
> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> Is he an ace?
Ask him.... :)
Leadfoot
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:430debad-f4d9-44de...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>Ask him.... :)
Before or after I ask him... who is the greatest fighter pilot in the world?
lol
Rob Arndt
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:430debad-f4d9-44de...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 10:36 pm, "Leadfoot" <Leadf...@leadfoot.net> wrote:
>
> >> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> >> Is he an ace?
> >Ask him.... :)
>
> Before or after I ask him... who is the greatest fighter pilot in the world?
> lol
I doubt any UAV ace could shoot down 352 of them ;)
Anyway, idiotic discussion as UAV and even UCAV kills are not in the
same league as real manned aerial combat for which the ace standard
was created.
Rob
guy
> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> Is he an ace?
Id say no, you were not regarded as an ace for shooting down 5 V1s
Guy
Rob Arndt
They are + types, like an event guest list with a "plus one' person.
Example: Lilya Litvak in WW2- 12 a/c kills + 1 balloon. Same for UAVs
and UCAVs and if the contest was right now AFAIK, an Iraqi pilot wins
for downing 2 Predators. Or course, there are Russian, Georgian,
Iranian, Israeli, Syrian, and other pilots that have downed a spy
UAV...
FWIW, I think Lt, Jafari of the IIAF should have been given a special
award and credit for attempting to engage in combat a claimed alien
UFO in the 1970s with his F-4. That is the only substantiated case
that can be verified by eyewitness accounts on the ground, air, air
radar, ground radar, ground troops, and even a US spy satellite.
Tehran Incident.
Rob
SolomonW
@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_air_aces
James B. Dalglish has 9 kills (incl 3 V-1s). Note the V-1s are included.
Steven P. McNicoll
You were regarded as an ace for shooting down 5 balloons.
George Z. Bush
> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> Is he an ace?
Not unless they can shoot back, IMHO. Short of that, it doesn't count for
much more than airborne gunnery practice.
George Z.
George Z. Bush
But weren't there observers in those baskets defending themselves with some
sort of guns? Or was there some sort of glory attached to shooting down an
unmanned, unarmed sitting duck target? If there was, it doesn't seem to
have been worth much AFAIAC.
George Z.
Steven P. McNicoll
>>
>> You were regarded as an ace for shooting down 5 balloons.
>>
>
> But weren't there observers in those baskets defending themselves
> with some sort of guns? Or was there some sort of glory attached to
> shooting down an unmanned, unarmed sitting duck target? If there
> was, it doesn't seem to have been worth much AFAIAC.
>
The guns were on the ground. An observation balloon was a high value
target, they were heavily defended with the finest antiaircraft weaponry of
the day.
Tiger
> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> Is he an ace?
>
Well........ Back in WW1 if you shot a observation Balloon, it counted.
I guess a UAV would be the 21st century version.
Tiger
Uh, that "unarmed" guy in a basket had a phone. A phone to control the
arty. fire that could kill thousands of men on the ground & change a
battle's outcome. It was the recon & observation guys that mattered in
WW1. Not the glory boys in the single seats..... So what is more
important? Shooting 80 Spads & SE5a's or 25 balloons over the Somme?
guy
wrote:
Balloon busting was ***exremely*** dangerous, lots of guns on the
ground which new the altitude of the balloon and hence that of the
attacking fighter, and the ballon could be hauled down very quickly,
usually before the attacking fighter could get within range.
There is a good discussion on it here:-
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/26564-balloon-busting.html
Guy
Dan
The WW1 balloons were filled hydrogen so the observers tended to bail
out from baskets equipped with parachutes. The defenses were ground based.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
tomcervo
> � The WW1 balloons were filled hydrogen so the observers tended to bail
> out from baskets equipped with parachutes. The defenses were ground based.
Actually, the real target was the observer, a highly trained man a lot
harder to replace--and balloons were defended by very heavy flak.
"Balloon experts" were regarded as very useful nutcases, and few
lasted very long.
A better analogy might be the kamikaze, obsolescent planes flown
mostly by very inexperienced pilots, many of whom hadn't finished
enough flight school to even land safely. Sakai said that they were so
low in skills that they wouldn't have lasted their first ordinary
mission--at least as kamikazes their deaths might account for
something.
George Z. Bush
But other bona fide aces didn't get any extra credit because of the presence
or density of ack ack on the ground, so why should the balloon poppers?
IOW, ground fire shouldn't be considered to be an ability of an unarmed
balloon to shoot back IMO.
George Z.
George Z. Bush
Let's not get carried away.....the importance was immaterial to the original
question.....you were an ace if you shot down five enemy aircraft, so were
you also an ace if you shot down five tethered balloons? Anyone who thinks
that the answer should be yes has to have a very peculiar idea of what it
takes to shoot down one as compared to the other.
von Richtofen might argue that he presented a helluva tougher target for the
Spads than a hundred tethered balloons did.
George Z.
Glenn Dowdy
"George Z. Bush" <georg...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:9NVnk.16658$LF2....@newsfe09.iad...
Glenn D.
George Z. Bush
If it required any discernable degree of skill or courage, I'd say yes.
Otherwise..........
Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming that mine is the only correct
viewpoint, merely that it's mine.
George Z.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> But other bona fide aces didn't get any extra credit because of the
> presence or density of ack ack on the ground, so why should the
> balloon poppers? IOW, ground fire shouldn't be considered to be an
> ability of an unarmed balloon to shoot back IMO.
>
History is what it is, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Let's not get carried away.....the importance was immaterial to the
> original question.....you were an ace if you shot down five enemy
> aircraft, so were you also an ace if you shot down five tethered
> balloons? Anyone who thinks that the answer should be yes has to
> have a very peculiar idea of what it takes to shoot down one as
> compared to the other.
The answer is yes, any opinion on what the answer should be ninety years
later is irrelevant.
dump...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Sometimes the UAv *can* shoot back:
"An Iraqi MiG-25 shot down a Predator performing reconnaissance over
the no fly zone
in Iraq on December 23, 2002, after the Predator fired a missile at
it. This was the first
time in history a conventional aircraft and a drone had engaged in
combat. Predators
had been armed with AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles, and were being
used to "bait"
Iraqi fighter planes, then run. In this incident, the Predator didn't
run, but instead fired
one of the Stingers. The Stinger's heat-seeker became "distracted" by
the MiG's
missile and so missed the MiG, and the Predator was destroyed."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator#Iraq
This page claims the Stinger miss was actially caused by the fact that
the MiG-25's
missiles had longer range than Stinger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Focus
anyone know which is the case?
John
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand that during WW2 the 8th Air Force took to crediting
ground kills of German aircraft as equal to aerial kills. The reason
was that the Luftwaffe was not flying that much so thier was
relatively little air combat. The air fields were heavily defended
with ground fire and pilots were avoiding strafing them in favor of
trains or other vehicles. By crediting ground kills the same
aggressive pilots were willing to run the risk of strafing German
airfields. I don't know how long those credits lasted but some time
after the war the USAF consolidated the entire victory credits system
and disallowed ground kills in favor of air combat kills. As an
example Don Gentile is credited with something like 36 kills on his
aircraft Shangri La but now is only recognized for around 18.
( Numbers approximate from memory)
John Dupre'
Dan
would count if so.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many Ju-52s were in fact armed
Guy
Dan
That's true, and Gigant had firing ports. I was thinking of
transports in general to include C-47.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>I understand that during WW2 the 8th Air Force took to crediting
>ground kills of German aircraft as equal to aerial kills. The reason
>was that the Luftwaffe was not flying that much so thier was
>relatively little air combat. The air fields were heavily defended
>with ground fire and pilots were avoiding strafing them in favor of
>trains or other vehicles. By crediting ground kills the same
>aggressive pilots were willing to run the risk of strafing German
>airfields. I don't know how long those credits lasted but some time
>after the war the USAF consolidated the entire victory credits system
>and disallowed ground kills in favor of air combat kills. As an
>example Don Gentile is credited with something like 36 kills on his
>aircraft Shangri La but now is only recognized for around 18.
>( Numbers approximate from memory)
>
>John Dupre'
Don't know when that period might have been, but right now I'm working
through the WW II period of Robin Olds who arrived in theater a bit
before D-Day with the 479th Fighter Group and 434th Fighter Sqdn. His
logs and writings don't indicate any credit or concern with ground
kills. He chafed that his relatively inexperienced P-38 group wasn't
getting to see any airborne Luftwaffe and was tasked with ground
attack.
When Hub Zemke took over the 479th (transferred from the 56th FG in
anticipation of getting into the Mustangs which were going to the
479th), they got more air/air tasking. Robin got a double shortly
thereafter and then a triple a couple of weeks after that, becoming
the 479ths first ace.
I've seen no records that indicate anything other than 12.5 air/air
kills and 14 air/ground kills separately listed.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
Ed Rasimus
>George Z. Bush wrote:
>> But weren't there observers in those baskets defending themselves with some
>> sort of guns? Or was there some sort of glory attached to shooting down an
>> unmanned, unarmed sitting duck target? If there was, it doesn't seem to
>> have been worth much AFAIAC.
>>
>> George Z.
>
> The WW1 balloons were filled hydrogen so the observers tended to bail
>out from baskets equipped with parachutes. The defenses were ground based.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
The criteria at the time were that observation balloons were counted
as aerial victories. Whether that was proper by standards developed
later is decidedly moot. It was what it was.
Frank Luke gained his fame (and his ace status) as a "Balloon Buster."
Rob Arndt
The Gigant as Me-321 had defensive armament of 2x 7.92mm MG-15 in beam
windows PLUS up to 10 firing ports for the soldiers. The Me-323 raised
this to 5x MG-15 in the nose plus 6 firing ports for 7.92mm MG-34s.
Latter versions had 5x 13mm MG-131 added.
Do get it right.
Special variants like the Me-323E-2/WT (Waffentraeger) had 11x MG-151
20mm cannon. One was in a power operated nose turret anf four in
single EDL 151 electric turrets above the wing, with 6 spread out to
cover all areas of the plane. Four more 13mm MG-131 were also carried=
15 guns, armor, and bulletproof glass. However, this proved
impractical and reliance was placed back on escort fighters with
reduced armament fitted.
Largest load a Me-323 tried was a huge 17.7 ton bomb. Towed by a
He-111Z in trials, the rear fuselage broke after only 1 bomb was
dropped. But it was the biggest bomb at 36,690 lbs dropped until that
point in the war- bigger than anything the British had and only
surpassed by the US Cloudbuster and the atomic bombs.
Depending on the model, the Ju-52 also carried 2x 7.92mm MG-15 or a
single MG-81. Early models had both a dorsal mount and retractable
hand-cranked ventral mount. Latter models just kept the dorsal mount
and switched over to 13mm MG-131.
Rob
Rob
Cubdriver
The same problem arose in 1944-1945 when RAF pilots were shooting down
or tumbling V-1 buzz bombs out of the sky. Chris Shores solved the
problem by listing V-1 aces separately. (Actually, he lists every
claim against a V-1, since even though they DID NOT count as aerial
victories, they still could be added to an ace's total. I see one
pilot with 82 vics against V-1s and none against conventional
aircraft. I see another with 61/0 and a third with 59.5 V-1 vics and 1
against conventional aircraft.
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com
Cubdriver
The V-1s couldn't shoot back, either, but at least one RAF pilot was
killed when (by accident or design) he rammed the buzz bomb.
Dan
> Rob Arndt <teut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Largest load a Me-323 tried was a huge 17.7 ton bomb. Towed by a
>> He-111Z in trials, the rear fuselage broke after only 1 bomb was
>> dropped.
>
>
> The way large bombs are dropped nowadays wasn't available, of course,
> given that the Gigant had loading doors in the front :-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
This was discussed in another thread. It turns out aren't could never
explain how it could be done without destroying the aircraft. She tried
to explain it was pushed out the nose. Center of gravity shifts and
sudden increase in drag would have shredded the aircraft. I don't
believe it was ever considered save as a suicide airplane.
George Z. Bush
I never questioned history......I was merely expressing my opinion. You
might find that irrelevant, in which case your silence would have been more
appropriate than trying to shush me, but my opinion on the matter is quite
relevant to me, whether or not you get it.
Personally, I don't care if you get it or not.....I'm not trying to make
converts.
George Z.
George Z. Bush
Well, then, you're entitled to your very peculiar idea, however relevant or
irrelevant it may be to the conversation. It just doesn't happen to be the
same as mine.
George Z.
Rob Arndt
The Me-323 could carry 22 tons and, as such, was the only Luftwaffe a/
c capable of testing the 17.7 ton bomb. It was never meant to become a
Me-323 variant bomber- which would be ludicrous.
Also, this is a historical event that happened; however, the mods to
the a/c are not known except that the bomb obviously could not be
carried externally! It was carried inside, so either the Germans
modified the floor to make a bay or as others claim, modified the
entire nose section as non-clamshell but as some form of retracting
mechanism with a slide. Whatever it was, it broke the rear fuselage in
practice.
Your point on stresses and shifting CG would seem true enough, but the
bomb was successfully dropped anyway.
It is not my responsibility to provide details that are not given by
sources. I have the sources, just not the details. There is also a
Gigant Mistel combo that was in the works...
Rob
George Z. Bush
I was aware of that and had been much interested in the air war during WWI
when I was growing up. I think you supported my point when you said that
during WWII, air to air victories were counted separately from air to
ground. That was the rule I was familiar with and I have no idea at what
point it changed from what it had been in WWI.
Parenthetically, I once heard that there was a goonie bird driver in Italy
who had a swastika painted on his plane. From what I recall, he was flying
a low-level resupply mission to Tito's partisans in Yugoslavia using PPI to
fly up a river valley when he became aware that he was under fire from the
rear. The way I heard it, he dropped his gear and dumped his flaps and did
a steep angle 180 and the trailing FW 190 flew into a mountainside while
trying to slow down and turn inside him.
George Z.
Dan
Dan
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You claim it
happened you need to prove it did. Where did it happen and what date?
Was it a test or an actually attempt at operational use?
Fred the Red Shirt
I've read that the Flying Tigers were credited with a victory for
airplanes destroyed on the ground.
Also this fellow relates two 'victories' against P-61s scored by a
civilian
piloting the unarmed civilian version of the DO 335:
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/scze335p.htm
--
FF
Leadfoot
"Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:44e55285-a3a9-44ce...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I've read that the Flying Tigers were credited with a victory for
> airplanes destroyed on the ground.
SInce they were paid cash that might have made a difference.
tomcervo
> It is not my responsibility to provide details that are not given by
> sources. I have the sources, just not the details.
And how long have you worked for the CIA?
Dan
CIA is more reliable.
frank
So how is an Ace determined? I don't think its codified anywhere, but
I could be wrong.
Being around a bunch of MAC drivers for a long time, it was pretty
esoteric.
Barrage balloons were a big deal in WWI. Lt. Frank Luke was ordered
not to go after them, and he died and got the Medal of Honor after he
was shot down then shot at the German patrol who tried to capture
him. They shot him.
I know it has to be documented now, i.e. gun camera film. Or
independently verified, which cuts down on what the pilot thinks he
should have earned.
You can get credit for anything you shoot down or up, but don't know
how technically Ace works. You'd think an enemy aircraft in the air
would count, though locomotives and ground stuff would be counted just
to show how good you were. Try getting a locomotive. i.e. fighter vs.
bomber vs. transport, all hurt the enemy. Though it may loosen up as
we're short of aces. Times change.
In DS they were painting Scuds as well as tanks on their planes for
kills.
Habu drivers did the similar thing on the SR-71 for a while on some of
their missions before they were told to knock it off.
Dan
> Lets ask Ed what the scoop is on this.
>
> So how is an Ace determined? I don't think its codified anywhere, but
> I could be wrong.
>
> Being around a bunch of MAC drivers for a long time, it was pretty
> esoteric.
>
> Barrage balloons were a big deal in WWI.
Barrage balloons and observation balloons were not the same thing.
Observation balloons were manned. Balloon barrages were strung with
cables to encourage airplanes to keep their distance lest they be snagged.
Rob Arndt
I was speaking of online and book references.
Rob
guy
Er, I think you will find that is an April fool or similar, check out
the names:-
D-ADIK ('Max Mümmelmann'), D-ADIL ('Wahnfred von Lichtofen') and D-
ALDI ('Oswald Kolle')
(it is quite a nice colur scheme though)
sorry;-)
Guy
Rob Arndt
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
> > the a/c are not known except that the bomb obviously could not be
> > carried externally! It was carried inside, so either the Germans
> > modified the floor to make a bay or as others claim, modified the
> > entire nose section as non-clamshell but as some form of retracting
> > mechanism with a slide. Whatever it was, it broke the rear fuselage in
> > practice.
>
> turned out to be more important than expected.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> The OFFICIAL tagline of the 2000' Olympics!
Some imply that they just cut out a section like a C-130 and dropped
it out the rear- this causing the rear structure to come apart as the
a/c had been strafed earlier. Others believe firmly the bomb went out
the front- Me-323 as dive bomber and that caused the structural
failure. And lastly, some believe this was a test for the Gigant
Mistel concept of how much of a warhead could be carried internally.
Any one of these scenarios could be true including a mod for a bomb
bay. It took a He-111Z plus 8 Walter RATO units to get this thing
airborn. That's much more than a standard 3 Me Bf 110 tow and only 4
RATO units.
Rob
Dan
I like the out the front like a dive bomber idea. The bomb is
traveling at the same speed as the airplane so you have to rapidly slow
the airplane to overcome friction and let inertia pull the bomb out. A
drag chute would do this. It would also cause the Nazis in the pilot
seats to go through the wind screen if not properly strapped in.
Considering how flimsy the gigant was the tail section would probably
get yanked off. The part I like the most is the money and manpower
wasted if they actually built it. No proof seems to exist that it did,
but they should have built more and tested them. It would be a great way
to bump off Nazi pilots.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
The B-26 killed more pilots than the Gigant did :)
Can you say "Widowmaker"? Same for the shitty YP-80s- Major Bong offed
by one of those POS a/c :)
Rob
Wal
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mkbok.18920$LF2....@newsfe09.iad...
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 12:12?am, Juergen Nieveler
Is every American killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a Republican, or is
characterising the political affiliation of soldiers based on the political
party in power only applied to Germans? If not, we can say that all the US
soldiers killed in WW2 were Democrats, and wonder what the cowardly
Republicans were doing from 1941 to 1945.
> Considering how flimsy the gigant was the tail section would probably get
> yanked off. The part I like the most is the money and manpower wasted if
> they actually built it. No proof seems to exist that it did, but they
> should have built more and tested them. It would be a great way to bump
> off Nazi pilots.
The US found a "dangerous, expensive and unsuccessful" project on which to
waste lives and money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite#Missions
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
What were your war service years so we know whether to call you a Republican
or Democrat?
Eunometic
> The same problem arose in 1944-1945 when RAF pilots were shooting down
> or tumbling V-1 buzz bombs out of the sky. Chris Shores solved the
> problem by listing V-1 aces separately. (Actually, he lists every
> claim against a V-1, since even though they DID NOT count as aerial
> victories, they still could be added to an ace's total. I see one
> pilot with 82 vics against V-1s and none against conventional
> aircraft. I see another with 61/0 and a third with 59.5 V-1 vics and 1
> against conventional aircraft.
Shooting down V1's could be quite dangerous due to the back blast of
the exploding warhead.
Several RAF pilots were injured burns from induction of the flame was
one way this
could happen. Sending the V1 tumbling by disturbing the wingtip
airflow was regarded as safer.
The Luftwaffe became aware of the technique and enhanced the control
limits of the V1's autopilot.
They would have been quite capable of putting a simple 'magic eye'
photo tube to boobytrap
the bomb if given time and inclination and perhaps the warheads
effects against aircraft could have
been enhanced.
Either way it was a hazardous activity that required some selflessness
and courage that demands
recognition.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Well, then, you're entitled to your very peculiar idea, however
> relevant or irrelevant it may be to the conversation. It just
> doesn't happen to be the same as mine.
>
I simply stated that pilots were regarded as an ace for shooting down 5
balloons. What you feel is a "peculiar idea" is considered historical fact
by informed people.
George Z. Bush
Being as hard-sided as Slavs are hard-headed, I'm sure it's still there as
we speak.
(^v^)))))))
George Z.
George Z. Bush
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>>
>> Well, then, you're entitled to your very peculiar idea, however
>> relevant or irrelevant it may be to the conversation. It just
>> doesn't happen to be the same as mine.
>>
>
> I simply stated that pilots were regarded as an ace for shooting down 5
I know, and Ed Rasimus said the same thing, and I didn't argue the point
with either of you.
> .....What you feel is a "peculiar idea" is considered historical fact by
> informed people.
What is there about "I didn't argue the point" that upsets you so much?
Does your ego need so much puffing up that you can't accept it and move on
without chapping my ass over semantics? As far as the snotty remark about
informed people is concerned, I've probably forgotten more about WWI than
you ever knew.
IAC, to answer your silly question, I consider it a peculiar idea because,
if I had made the rules back in 1917-18, I'd have written them differently.
To me, they were peculiar, even if they were what they were. Now can we
move on and stop being such a PITA over semantics and word definitions?
Jesus H. Christ..........what did I ever do to deserve having to deal with a
ball-buster like you?
George Z.
Steven P. McNicoll
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> George Z. Bush wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, then, you're entitled to your very peculiar idea, however
>>> relevant or irrelevant it may be to the conversation. It just
>>> doesn't happen to be the same as mine.
>>>
>>
>> I simply stated that pilots were regarded as an ace for shooting
>> down 5 balloons.....
>
> I know, and Ed Rasimus said the same thing, and I didn't argue the
> point with either of you.
>
>
>> .....What you feel is a "peculiar idea" is considered historical
>> fact by informed people.
>
> What is there about "I didn't argue the point" that upsets you so
> much?
>
What gave you the idea I was upset?
>
> Does your ego need so much puffing up that you can't accept it
> and move on without chapping my ass over semantics?
>
Nope. Why didn't you accept it as fact and move on when you learned that
balloons counted the same as airplanes?
>
> As far as the
> snotty remark about informed people is concerned, I've probably
> forgotten more about WWI than you ever knew.
>
Forgot or never knew, it's obvious you know less now.
>
> IAC, to answer your silly question, ...
>
I didn't ask a question.
>
> ... I consider it a peculiar idea
> because, if I had made the rules back in 1917-18, I'd have written
> them differently. To me, they were peculiar, even if they were what
> they were. Now can we move on and stop being such a PITA over
> semantics and word definitions?
>
That's up to you.
>
> Jesus H. Christ..........what did I
> ever do to deserve having to deal with a ball-buster like you?
>
You're free to ignore my messages.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
George Z has his head up his ass, balloons counted in WW1.
Hey idiot, why don't you just buy this book:
"Balloon-Busting Aces of WW1" by Jon Guttman (2005) Details about the
aces who went after the observation balloons. Has one chapter on the
top balloon ace; Wiley Coppens. Includes 40 color plates side-views of
aircraft pluw 8 views of the top of a few. 96 pages.
ISBN 1-841768774.
Lt Wiley Coppens was the highest scoring ace of Belgium with 37 kills.
Most of his kills were observation balloons and he held the record for
highest number of balloons destroyed for any pilot in WW1.
Rob
p.s. Your forgotten WW1 knowledge??? WTF??? Don't make me laugh. Wait
until my new "Strange German Aircraft and Armaments of World War I"
site comes online. I bet it will have a majority of material you never
had a fucking clue about ;)
Steven P. McNicoll
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
>> The guns were on the ground. An observation balloon was a high value
>> target, they were heavily defended with the finest antiaircraft
>> weaponry of the day.
>
> But surely the balloon obstacles of WW2 didn't count?
>
Barrage balloons? I wouldn't think they'd be targeted.
And don't call me Surely.
Eunometic
> Leadfoot wrote:
> > If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>
> > Is he an ace?
>
> Well........ Back in WW1 if you shot a observation Balloon, it counted.
> I guess a UAV would be the 21st century version.
As you suggest shooting down a baloon could be dangerous as it was no
doubt often heavily defended.
Autonomous UACV's are about to start shooting back soon and shooting
one down may well be
harder and more dangerous than fighting a maned vehicle. I see no
reason that a UACV could not right
now be fitted with a conformal all round AESA radar fused with imaging
infrared sensors that would provide
real time 'all round' information on the entire air situation to and
autonomous electronic pilot.
Radars based on mechanical scanned arrays just couldn't track enough
objects but AESA's can track
dozens. These UACV will be able to format, flock, swarn and develop
co-ordinated attacks completely
independently of human control.
Imagine as a fighter pilot having an armed UACV flying wingman 10km
behined and 1 km above and another 10km ahead acting
as a remote sensor and also armed with missiles. Another pair migh act
as scouts with their information fused into the pilots scope
I expect the things will be able to pull say 25G and to evade and
counter attack. Although loosely controlled in the sense of taking
commands such as "scout 10km ahead, avoid detection by the enemy,
counter attack if attacked directly"
They'll need a moral sense since they will make life and death
decisions.
Dan
Well, there were a whole lot more B-26 made.
Dan
Nice try, Nazi Germany was a single party system.
John
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT), John <jdupre5...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I understand that during WW2 the 8th Air Force took to crediting
> >ground kills of German aircraft as equal to aerial kills. The reason
> >was that the Luftwaffe was not flying that much so thier was
> >relatively little air combat. The air fields were heavily defended
> >with ground fire and pilots were avoiding strafing them in favor of
> >trains or other vehicles. By crediting ground kills the same
> >aggressive pilots were willing to run the risk of strafing German
> >airfields. I don't know how long those credits lasted but some time
> >after the war the USAF consolidated the entire victory credits system
> >and disallowed ground kills in favor of air combat kills. As an
> >example Don Gentile is credited with something like 36 kills on his
> >aircraft Shangri La but now is only recognized for around 18.
> >( Numbers approximate from memory)
>
> >John Dupre'
>
> Don't know when that period might have been, but right now I'm working
> through the WW II period of Robin Olds who arrived in theater a bit
> before D-Day with the 479th Fighter Group and 434th Fighter Sqdn. His
> logs and writings don't indicate any credit or concern with ground
> kills. He chafed that his relatively inexperienced P-38 group wasn't
> getting to see any airborne Luftwaffe and was tasked with ground
> attack.
>
> When Hub Zemke took over the 479th (transferred from the 56th FG in
> anticipation of getting into the Mustangs which were going to the
> 479th), they got more air/air tasking. Robin got a double shortly
> thereafter and then a triple a couple of weeks after that, becoming
> the 479ths first ace.
>
> I've seen no records that indicate anything other than 12.5 air/air
> kills and 14 air/ground kills separately listed.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.comwww.thunderchief.org
I remember an old book I think the title was Five Down and Glory.
That is where I remember reading about ground kills being credited the
same as aerial kills. I remember that the 14th Air Force did the same
thing. John Herbst was credited with 51 kills total but only 16 or so
were aerial kills. The USAF established a Fighter Victory Credits
Review Board that sought to rationalize the conflicting standards
between the different air forces and even wars. Oneof the things this
board did was to establish that ground kills did not count toward
"ace" status.
John Dupre'
George Z. Bush
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> George Z. Bush wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, then, you're entitled to your very peculiar idea, however
>>>> relevant or irrelevant it may be to the conversation. It just
>>>> doesn't happen to be the same as mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I simply stated that pilots were regarded as an ace for shooting
>>> down 5 balloons.....
>>
>> I know, and Ed Rasimus said the same thing, and I didn't argue the
>> point with either of you.
>>
>>
>>> .....What you feel is a "peculiar idea" is considered historical
>>> fact by informed people.
>>
>> What is there about "I didn't argue the point" that upsets you so
>> much?
>>
>
> What gave you the idea I was upset?
Because you felt obliged to belabor the matter of WWI rules after I had
moved on and commented about the rules during WWII.
>
>
>>
>> Does your ego need so much puffing up that you can't accept it
>> and move on without chapping my ass over semantics?
>>
>
> Nope. Why didn't you accept it as fact and move on when you learned that
> balloons counted the same as airplanes?
There are none so blind as those who will not see, and you're a perfect
example of that kind of blind man. I'm done trying to explain myself to
someone who's too ignorant to understand what I've said.
>
>
>>
>> As far as the
>> snotty remark about informed people is concerned, I've probably
>> forgotten more about WWI than you ever knew.
>>
>
> Forgot or never knew, it's obvious you know less now.
Less than what?
>
>
>>
>> IAC, to answer your silly question, ...
>>
>
> I didn't ask a question.
You did.
>
>
>
>>
>> ... I consider it a peculiar idea
>> because, if I had made the rules back in 1917-18, I'd have written
>> them differently. To me, they were peculiar, even if they were what
>> they were. Now can we move on and stop being such a PITA over
>> semantics and word definitions?
>>
>
> That's up to you.
Mighty big of you.
>
>
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ..........what did I
>> ever do to deserve having to deal with a ball-buster like you?
>>
>
> You're free to ignore my messages.
I'm so glad that I have your permission.
Rob Arndt
... and a lot more funerals too :)
Rob
Duwop
wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
George, you must be doing something right, you got both this guy and
Aren't trying to hump your leg.
Steven P. McNicoll
>>
>> What gave you the idea I was upset?
>>
>
> Because you felt obliged to belabor the matter of WWI rules after I
> had moved on and commented about the rules during WWII.
>
You still haven't moved on.
>>
>> Nope. Why didn't you accept it as fact and move on when you learned
>> that balloons counted the same as airplanes?
>>
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see, and you're a
> perfect example of that kind of blind man. I'm done trying to
> explain myself to someone who's too ignorant to understand what I've
> said.
Don't blame me for your difficulties in expressing yourself.
>>
>> Forgot or never knew, it's obvious you know less now.
>>
>
> Less than what?
>
Less than me.
>>
>> I didn't ask a question.
>>
>
> You did.
>
What question do you believe I asked?
>>
>> That's up to you.
>>
>
> Mighty big of you.
>
That's my nature.
>>
>> You're free to ignore my messages.
>>
>
> I'm so glad that I have your permission.
>
You didn't need my permission.
Rob Arndt
Must be a bitch for George to:
a) admit he was wrong about WW1 balloon aces to Steven
and
b) to be proven wrong by me with refs :)
I'd love to tag-team this asshole more, but Steven is doing fine by
himself- forcing George into a corner he can't get out of despite his
failed attempts at arguing points he never made in the first place.
Nice try George Z, maybe you should change your S/N to George W. Jr.
Rob
Dan
Your point is?
B-26 became a success, nothing in gigant series did. B-26 had an
influence on the war, gigant was an amusing waste of money and manpower.
Rob Arndt
Apples & Oranges.
B-26 was a production USAAF medium bomber and the Me-323 was a
Luftwaffe transport- a huge lumbering transport that did its job
satisfactorily on the eastern front despite its massive, slow-moving
target status. It takes a lot to lift up to 22 tons and then ferry
tanks, artillery, vehicles, or 120 armed troops to destinations in
Russia in horrible weather.
Considering that the fuselage was largely fabric covered and offered
no real defense as well as the exposed engines high up on the wings...
I'd say it did OK under the circumstances of the war.
Rob
Robert Sveinson
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:6328809b-f99e-4ff2...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Aug, 03:36, "Leadfoot" <Leadf...@leadfoot.net> wrote:
>> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>>
>> Is he an ace?
>
>
> Guy
I seem to remember reading some where
recently that the hierarchy of the RAF
would allow the count of one victory
for every two V1s shot down.
I do not remember whether a
pilot in the RAF, or RFC were
creditted with a "kill"
for shooting down observation
balloons.Or any other kind of balloon.
frank
Do some more research, those that flew the B-26 swear by it. There was
an AF effort where they sent a team with a B-26 to show the pilots how
to fly it that cut down on the accident rate.
And lets not forget, there were 45,000 accidents a year in WWII. Not
all totals, but that's a hell of a lot different than today's
statistics.
frank
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> What were your war service years so we know whether to call you a Republican
> or Democrat?
Well, I hate to tell you this, but when I was around the AF, you
didn't know what the hell party a person voted for. The only color you
cared about was AF blue. Period. You didn't discuss politics.
A generation back, officers DID NOT VOTE on professional grounds as
the President was the Commander in Chief. There were still some in the
60s who did not vote but that aspect of being a professional military
officer is one that is no longer the case.
Dan
You are the one who brought B-26 into the comparison, not me.
George Z. Bush
I was so involved with Numbnuts that I didn't even notice Aren't. I don't
recall him taking part........either that or his willy is so small that it
doesn't make any kind of impression.
(^v^)))))))))
George Z.
George Z. Bush
I did a little back tracking and found that Aren't was involved in the
chatter about the B-26 and Gigant, but I hadn't taken part in any of that,
so it must have been somebody else's leg he was trying to drill a hole in.
George Z.
Blinky Bill
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:81bee65e-ad59-48c9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Duwop
Nah, you just missed the message is all.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/msg/271ccb2a5f44196c
Like I said, you must be doing something right.
George Z. Bush
message that you linked for me. By the time I had finished trying to
straighten out McAsshole (unsuccessfully as you surely have noticed), I was
so bent outta shape that I didn't even bother reading the words of Herr
Deutsche Asshole.
What both of them insist on getting wrong is that I NEVER said that shooting
down balloons during WWI didn't count towards acehood. I was completely
aware of the fact that they did. What I DID say was that if I had written
the rules at that time, I'd have written them differently.
How can anyone with a functioning brain continue to fuck up understanding
something as simple as that? For the benefit of those who might have
thought that the two of them were functioning with less than a full deck,
they certainly helped remove all doubt just by running their chops.
In the words of our Aussie friends, "screw 'em all, screw 'em all, the long
and the short and the tall......"
(^v^)))))))))
Duwop wrote:
> On Aug 12, 7:30 pm, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@charter.net.nospam>
> wrote:
>> Duwop wrote:
>>> On Aug 12, 11:36 am, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@charter.net.nospam>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> George, you must be doing something right, you got both this guy and
>>> Aren't trying to hump your leg.
>>
>> I did a little back tracking and found that Aren't was involved in the
>> chatter about the B-26 and Gigant, but I hadn't taken part in any of
>> that,
>> so it must have been somebody else's leg he was trying to drill a hole
>> in.
>>
>> George Z.
>
> Nah, you just missed the message is all.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/msg/271ccb2a5f44196c
>
> Like I said, you must be doing something right.
Thanks, pal.....I don't often get compliments like that around here. Like
Avis, I just try harder.
George Z.
Duwop
wrote:
> How can anyone with a functioning brain continue to fuck up understanding
> something as simple as that? For the benefit of those who might have
I believe that McAsshat was fucking with you, pretty successfully too.
Now you know his methods and can ignore him in the future.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Just to straighten out this nonsense, I actually received the archived
> message that you linked for me. By the time I had finished trying to
> straighten out McAsshole (unsuccessfully as you surely have noticed),
> I was so bent outta shape that I didn't even bother reading the words
> of Herr Deutsche Asshole.
>
> What both of them insist on getting wrong is that I NEVER said that
> shooting down balloons during WWI didn't count towards acehood. I
> was completely aware of the fact that they did. What I DID say was
> that if I had written the rules at that time, I'd have written them
> differently.
> How can anyone with a functioning brain continue to fuck up
> understanding something as simple as that? For the benefit of those
> who might have thought that the two of them were functioning with
> less than a full deck, they certainly helped remove all doubt just by
> running their chops.
> In the words of our Aussie friends, "screw 'em all, screw 'em all,
> the long and the short and the tall......"
> (^v^)))))))))
>
Your messages in this thread suggest you had no idea balloons counted the
same as airplanes during WWI and your fragile ego simply won't allow you to
admit it. Wouldn't be a first for you.
Have a nice day, and try to relax.
George Z. Bush
Thanks....he already resides permanently in my shithouse with the rest of
the turds I can't be bothered with.
George Z.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Thanks....he already resides permanently in my shithouse with the
> rest of the turds I can't be bothered with.
>
Profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.
Peter Stickney
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> guy wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug, 03:36, "Leadfoot" <Leadf...@leadfoot.net> wrote:
>>>> If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>>>>
>>>> Is he an ace?
>>>
>>> Id say no, you were not regarded as an ace for shooting down 5 V1s
>>>
>>
>> You were regarded as an ace for shooting down 5 balloons.
>
> But weren't there observers in those baskets defending themselves with
> some
> sort of guns? Or was there some sort of glory attached to shooting down
> an
> unmanned, unarmed sitting duck target? If there was, it doesn't seem to
> have been worth much AFAIAC.
They weren't quite sitting ducks. Observation balloons were handled by
truck mounted high speed winches, which could haul down at well over 1,000
ft/min, and were surrounded by all manner of AA. (As in Flak Trap)
So they weren't quite stationary strafe targets.
I think the real answer to the question of "Why were they counted?"
is that the Big Wheels wanted them shot down, or shot up, and decided to
give the fighter pilots an incentive to go after them.
(The same, of course, applies to "ground kills" during World War 2.)
G.Z., I've got a bit of a related question - In the Troop Carriers, did they
differentiate between hot missions such as airborne drops or partisan
support, and general hauling stuff flights?
(Definitely not trying to start something - I'm honestly curious. There's
not a lot mentioned about Troop Carrier operations, other than the big
airborne assaults.)
--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan
Fred the Red Shirt
> Wal wrote:
> > "Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:mkbok.18920$LF2....@newsfe09.iad...
> >>
> >> at the same speed as the airplane so you have to rapidly slow the airplane
> >> to overcome friction and let inertia pull the bomb out. A drag chute would
> >> do this. It would also cause the Nazis in the pilot seats to go through
> >> the wind screen if not properly strapped in.
> >> Considering how flimsy the gigant was the tail section would probably get
> >> yanked off. The part I like the most is the money and manpower wasted if
> >> they actually built it. No proof seems to exist that it did, but they
> >> should have built more and tested them. It would be a great way to bump
> >> off Nazi pilots.
>
> > or Democrat?
>
> Nice try, Nazi Germany was a single party system.
And I have been told that membership in that party was prohibited
to military officers.
Affiliation in spirit would be a different matter.
--
FF
Duwop
wrote:
Absolutely not, initially the General Staff tried to hold the party at
arms length but Hitler quickly broke those walls down, one of the
first acts was requiring all serving military men, officers included,
to make a loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths are common for military men, but
are usually directed to their country, Hitler had them swear
allegiance to him personally.
70% of SS Officers were party members. Marshall Keitel and Ribbentrop
was as well.
Here's a sample list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_Party_leaders_and_officials
Paul J. Adam
McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> writes
I know one or two servicebeings whose worst expletive is "Shave off!" (I
mostly work with the dark blue)
They are very much the exception: Military Creole (only one adjective?)
is widely spoken and emerges under stress in surprising places and
remarkably high ranks. I'd not like to suggest that its speakers were
weak-minded, though. (It's interesting that I knew I'd earned some trust
with one Chief Petty Officer I worked with - when he dropped back to
swearing casually in conversation, after initially being a little
self-conscious and awkward at sharing an office with a civilian. He
*definitely* wasn't weak-minded, though...)
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Fred the Red Shirt
I may have misunderstood, or misremembered the explanation,.
assuming that I wasn't snookered by a neonazi apologist.
As the SS was organized directly under the Nazi party it is surprising
that 30% were not.
Perhaps it was the officers in the regular armed forces, the Heer
who were not permitted to be party members? If so, Luftwaffe
pilots would not have been Nazis, barring an exception.
Tiger
> On Aug 11, 10:26 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Leadfoot wrote:
>>
>>>If a fighter pilots should shoot down 5 UAV's?
>>
>>>Is he an ace?
>>
>> I guess a UAV would be the 21st century version.
>
>
> As you suggest shooting down a baloon could be dangerous as it was no
> doubt often heavily defended.
>
> Autonomous UACV's are about to start shooting back soon and shooting
> one down may well be
> harder and more dangerous than fighting a maned vehicle. I see no
> reason that a UACV could not right
> now be fitted with a conformal all round AESA radar fused with imaging
> infrared sensors that would provide
> real time 'all round' information on the entire air situation to and
> autonomous electronic pilot.
>
> Radars based on mechanical scanned arrays just couldn't track enough
> objects but AESA's can track
> dozens. These UACV will be able to format, flock, swarn and develop
> co-ordinated attacks completely
> independently of human control.
>
> Imagine as a fighter pilot having an armed UACV flying wingman 10km
> behined and 1 km above and another 10km ahead acting
> as a remote sensor and also armed with missiles. Another pair migh act
> as scouts with their information fused into the pilots scope
> I expect the things will be able to pull say 25G and to evade and
> counter attack. Although loosely controlled in the sense of taking
> commands such as "scout 10km ahead, avoid detection by the enemy,
> counter attack if attacked directly"
>
> They'll need a moral sense since they will make life and death
> decisions.
Your above outlook seems to be where the future is going. Instead of
Maverick & Ice man, it wil be Maverick & "Cylon-1" flying wing.
Dan
Raeder didn't like Nazis and discouraged navy personnel from
membership in the party. Other than that no branch of the military or
government banned Nazi party membership.
Duwop
wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:28 pm, Duwop <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 1:00 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfigh...@spamcop.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 9:55 am, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Nice try, Nazi Germany was a single party system.
> > > > ...
>
> > > And I have been told that membership in that party was prohibited
> > > to military officers.
>
> > > Affiliation in spirit would be a different matter.
>
> > Absolutely not, initially the General Staff tried to hold the party at
> > arms length but Hitler quickly broke those walls down, one of the
> > first acts was requiring all serving military men, officers included,
> > to make a loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths are common for military men, but
> > are usually directed to their country, Hitler had them swear
> > allegiance to him personally.
>
> > 70% of SS Officers were party members. Marshall Keitel and Ribbentrop
> > was as well.
>
> > Here's a sample list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_Party_leaders_and_officials
>
> I may have misunderstood, or misremembered the explanation,.
> assuming that I wasn't snookered by a neonazi apologist.
Or someone conflated US historic practice with Nazi. That someone
sounds like a likely apologist.
>
> As the SS was organized directly under the Nazi party it is surprising
> that 30% were not.
Agreed. But as the SS had foreign troops, they probably made up the
bulk of that 30%. But that's just a guess.
>
> Perhaps it was the officers in the regular armed forces, the Heer
> who were not permitted to be party members?
Nope, the list I showed had some very high ranking members of the
Heer. I imagine by 1944 it was mandatory to be a member to reach a
certain rank.
> If so, Luftwaffe
> pilots would not have been Nazis, barring an exception.
Not when you consider who was in charge of the Luftwaffe, that Goering
fellow, I'd expect a higher % of Nazi members in the Luftwaffe than
the Heer.
dump...@hotmail.com
air-launched decoys during Operation Desert Storm?
I wonder if any Iraqi pilots became "aces" because of that. :)
Blinky Bill
>>> traveling at the same speed as the airplane so you have to rapidly slow
>>> the airplane to overcome friction and let inertia pull the bomb out. A
>>> drag chute would do this. It would also cause the Nazis in the pilot
>>> seats to go through the wind screen if not properly strapped in.
>>
>> characterising the political affiliation of soldiers based on the
>> political party in power only applied to Germans? If not, we can say that
>> all the US soldiers killed in WW2 were Democrats, and wonder what the
>> cowardly Republicans were doing from 1941 to 1945.
>>
>>> get yanked off. The part I like the most is the money and manpower
>>> wasted if they actually built it. No proof seems to exist that it did,
>>> but they should have built more and tested them. It would be a great way
>>> to bump off Nazi pilots.
>>
>> to waste lives and money.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite#Missions
>>
>>
>> Republican or Democrat?
>
What difference does that make? That would only seem to validate describing
US military as Republicans or Democrats depending on the party in power.
Dan
made a difference. Every single aspect of Germany at the time had to
conform to Nazi rules. There's no comparison in U.S. history. Any
serviceman can belong to any political party he desires. In Nazi Germany
no other party was allowed for anyone, even servicemen.
Political affiliation has no bearing on the U.S. military services.
As long as I didn't display my political beliefs on duty there was no
conflict.
I'm not the one who invented calling the Third Reich "Nazi Germany"
so why get on my case about it? Do you also object to calling North
Korean forces "communist forces?"
Blinky Bill
Why? It didn't change the political affiliation of everybody in Germany. You
seem to be long on handwaving but short on rational argument.
> Every single aspect of Germany at the time had to conform to Nazi rules.
More handwaving - I don't believe that there were Nazi rules for "every
aspect of Germany", and even if there were, that still didn't make every
member of the military into Nazi.
>There's no comparison in U.S. history. Any serviceman can belong to any
>political party he desires. In Nazi Germany no other party was allowed for
>anyone, even servicemen.
And not every serviceman was a member of the Nazi Party, or even approved of
its goals and behaviour.
> Political affiliation has no bearing on the U.S. military services.
So you say.
> As long as I didn't display my political beliefs on duty there was no
> conflict.
That is not evidence of your previous claim.
>
> I'm not the one who invented calling the Third Reich "Nazi Germany"
I didn't say you were - propaganda in time of war often requires
dehumanising the enemy. It makes it easier to bomb towns and cities and kill
civilians when they have all been labelled "Nazis" or "communists". What you
did was say that the pilot of an aircraft was a Nazi, and there is every
possibility that he wouldn't be.
> so why get on my case about it?
I have a distant relative who fought in the Wehrmacht as a very young man
after being conscripted. He was never a Nazi, but his country was at war and
he did his duty, just as US conscripts have done in their wars. He wasn't
fighting for the Nazi party, he was fighting for Germany.
>Do you also object to calling North Korean forces "communist forces?"
Yes, and for the same reason. It makes as little sense as calling US forces
"capitalist forces". But it is a useful dehumanising label when the people
who use it have been brought up on a diet of hatred, fear and paranoia of
those they describe with that word.
Cubdriver
wrote:
> that still didn't make every
>member of the military into Nazi.
Though there was no requirement that an officer (and certainly not an
enlisted man) had to join the Nazi party, every member of the
Wehrmacht did take an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com
Duwop
It sure did, communists were imprisoned, activist priests, all sorts
of people who didn't toe the Nazi party line were persecuted. As there
were no other parties but the Nazi party it sure did change the
political affiliation of just about everyone in Germany. Your complete
ignorance is showing.
>
> > Every single aspect of Germany at the time had to conform to Nazi rules.
>
> More handwaving - I don't believe that there were Nazi rules for "every
> aspect of Germany",
Germans were very fond of community clubs, musical, nature walking,
boy scouts, you name it and the Nazi Party took them over. Germany was
very, very Nazified.
>and even if there were, that still didn't make every
> member of the military into Nazi.
But they supported the Nazi cause. Yes, as you say there were some
soldiers who got caught up in things that weren't Nazis of any type
whatsoever, but it's common shorthand to simply call them all Nazis as
each and every one was furthering the Nazi's war aims. And as I noted
before and as Dan notes, every member of the military took an oath of
allegiance to Hitler.
Blinky Bill
"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
news:3k8ea4ht3k2pulpsd...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:14:40 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>> that still didn't make every
>>member of the military into Nazi.
>
> Though there was no requirement that an officer (and certainly not an
> enlisted man) had to join the Nazi party, every member of the
> Wehrmacht did take an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
And that still doesn't make them Nazis.