random questions

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Bernhart

2012 Forum Fantasy Football Champion
890
636
Jan 9, 2007
Canada
Just putting out a random question, might leave this as an open thread if allowed. Would ground crew i.e.. armament crews from a hurricane squadron be able to rearm a spitfire during battle of Britain? I know the gun layouts would be different and the caliber is the same , but are the belts laid out differently?
 
As far as I am aware RAF fighter command had armourers trained on all types, when Spitfire squadrons replaced Hurricane squadrons they didnt replace all the ground crew, by the time of the BoB both types had been in service for years, its highly unlikely that any airfield had no one with experience on both types.
 
I will find and post the relative parts of the RAAF armourers training notes that cover this. Interestingly the late 43 RAAF notes were all about Spitfires and Hurricanes and German aircraft even though the vast majority of RAAF fighters were P-40s and all the aircraft they were fighting were Japanese.
But basically yes - an armourer was an armourer and worked on all types
 
Re #6 above.
Here is the gun section Table of Contents from the RAAF Armourers Notes (also used to train pilots and air gunners) and the Browning section which you will see has no type specific material (and a couple of the random target pages - remember Australia is in the Pacific and Do 217, Ju88, etc were not likely targets anywhere in the Pacific in or after Dec 1943). There are no pages covering Japanese aircraft

[edited for clarity]


 

Attachments

  • Chapter 1 Section 01 Browning.pdf
    15 MB · Views: 81
Last edited:
You probably get asked this all the time, but concerning WW2 is it better to use "Russian" or "Soviet"? Thanks in advance.

Depends on exactly what you're referring to. Somewhat like England and the United Kingdom. Soviet is the better 'catch-all' just in case you're referring to something that happens to be Belarusian, Ukrainian, etc. and not Russian.
 
Depends on exactly what you're referring to. Somewhat like England and the United Kingdom. Soviet is the better 'catch-all' just in case you're referring to something that happens to be Belarusian, Ukrainian, etc. and not Russian.
Makes sense, I hadn't considered that Russia is made up of a lot of states.
 
Makes sense, I hadn't considered that Russia is made up of a lot of states.

No, the Soviet Union was made up of several states -- Russia being one of them.
Just like the United Kingdom is made up of several states -- England being one of them.
 
You probably get asked this all the time, but concerning WW2 is it better to use "Russian" or "Soviet"? Thanks in advance.

Good question... I always say "Soviet" (Sovetskiy) when speaking about the Soviet period unless the subject relates to something native Russian (language, cuisine, culture, etc.).
USSR consisted of 15 main (Union) republics and RSFSR (Russian republic) was just one of them, albeit the largest in territory and population.
I think this is sufficient reason to stay with the "Soviet".
Dzerzhinskiy was Pole. Stalin was Georgian. Berzin, the creator of GULag, was Latvian, and so on.

P.S. There are other reasons as well but they require much longer explanation.
 
So when talking about WW2 it is correct to use "Soviet"?
 

Users who are viewing this thread