Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,094
- Mar 26, 2007
No. They would not have the paperwork. He would get fired.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No. They would not have the paperwork. He would get fired.If a pilot is a bit of a sloppy flyer and writes off 5 slightly-damaged airplanes in landing accidents after combat, does he become an ace for the other side?
Does that have endless rows of paperwork. That still exist after all the years? 1993 i think that pic was.This reminds me of the Ground Hog threads…
That sounds threatening. I should probably be scared, right?Don't get me started with you…
That sounds threatening. I should probably be scared, right?
Just consider growing up.That sounds threatening. I should probably be scared, right?
It's too boring. I'd rather wait for some more vivid and meaningless analogies.Just consider growing up.
Come on. Its a debate. Please be a bit more adult. Yes i hate it too but...lets try that.That sounds threatening. I should probably be scared, right?
It's too boring. I'd rather wait for some more vivid and meaningless analogies.
It is all meaningless. What started as a logical attempt to establish effectiveness of air borne military units grew legs and wings and then flew to ridiculous heights. Some RAF squadrons kept a squadron score as some ground troops do because they fought as a unit. This wasnt acceptable to a nation that wanted aces and heroes. Pilots were obliged to report what they had no idea about and make claims because that is what many wanted to hear. Special awards were made for those who got high scores, culminating in Rudel getting the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross with oakleaves, diamonds and swords in January 1945, nothing could be more meaningless but they still found the people and time to do it. What Rudel truly thought about that nonsense we probably will never know. On top of that BS we have an additional pile of complete BS that dictates they all must have been gentlemen and not actually have tried to kill their opponent and haven forbid they said something nasty, as judged in 2024. If you want an analogy try Eisenbergs principle of uncertainty, the act of observing an activity can change the results of that activity.It's too boring. I'd rather wait for some more vivid and meaningless analogies.
To be honest, I just hate analogies in serious discussions. I heard a huge number of analogies during scientific debates while working in research institutes, and never - NEVER! - these analogies contributed to the understanding of the problem. Analogies are good in high school physics class. But not when finding out the truth, because the applicability of each analogy must be proven. If someone tries to use an analogy as an argument in a debate, it means that he has no serious arguments at all, except for his unsubstantiated opinion.Come on. Its a debate. Please be a bit more adult. Yes i hate it too but...lets try that.
You dont seem to be a person that scares easily.
But
This is not facebook.
He didnt ask you for the soul of your first born but just to be a tad more easy going.
And i think he is right.
To be honest, I just hate analogies in serious discussions. I heard a huge number of analogies during scientific debates while working in research institutes, and never - NEVER! - these analogies contributed to the understanding of the problem. Analogies are good in high school physics class. But not when finding out the truth, because the applicability of each analogy must be proven. If someone tries to use an analogy as an argument in a debate, it means that he has no serious arguments at all, except for his unsubstantiated opinion.
Get off your high horse. (c)My analogy made perfect sense in the context it was made in.
Unfortunately, it's not me who demonstrates a lack of understanding of the ridiculousness of the analogy.Your lack of understanding it is not my problem.
Get off your high horse. (c)
Unfortunately, it's not me who demonstrates a lack of understanding of the ridiculousness of the analogy.
I think I now better understand Calum Douglas' motives for deciding to leave the forum.
Any time an enemy aircraft was taken out of action (shot down, forced down, destroyed on ground) then the pilot was awarded the credit.Didn't also Deutsche Luftstreitkräfte during WWI count when one of their pilots forced an opponent to land behind their lines as Kill, or do I remember wrong?
Any time an enemy aircraft was taken out of action (shot down, forced down, destroyed on ground) then the pilot was awarded the credit.
However, to get that credit, there had to be at least one witness to corroborate the claim.
This could be from a fellow Airman, a captured allied Airman or observers on the ground (such as Army or Navy personnel).
If the enemy aircraft was downed by an observation or bomber aircraft, the crew were awarded the credit.
The one caveat, however, is that the enemy aircraft had to be downed anywhere within friendly territory to count. If it was downed behind Allied lines, it was discounted.
Example: if Richthofen had downed May's fighter (instead of being killed himself), it would not have been awarded to his victory total (as several others were also disqualified, particularly in 1915).
How would Hartmann or any pilot know a plane was repairable? How would they know it was returned to service? There was no way possible to confirm this. Therefore a kill is a kill.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the pilot that shot up Rommel in his staff car had previously written off a bunch of Spitfires in landing accidents.If a pilot is a bit of a sloppy flyer and writes off 5 slightly-damaged airplanes in landing accidents after combat, does he become an ace for the other side?