Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HMS Rawalpindi is a good example.
A basic ocean liner v Scharnhorst and Gneisanau is not a fair contest.
We'll fight them both, they'll sink us, and that will be that. Good-bye
Is surrendering better than fighting a hopeless fight? Of course the Royal Navy tradition says no. But the lives of the men shouldn't be squandered on lost causes.
You could say something very similar about the RAF Battle pilots in France in 1940.Back to the topic and the definition suggested by GrauGeist "Determined to succeed in spite of the odds".
Eastern Front, VVS. Summer 1941: Bomber crew going to the afternoon raid after half of the squadron is shot down in the morning. Summer 1942: Fighter pilot on the Khersones airfield in Sevastopol taking off and landing under German artillery fire and with Bf 109s in the air.
Easter Front, Luftwaffe. 1945. Probably most of the pilots who continued to fly in Koenigsberg and Courland Pocket. Certainly, those who participated in the evacuation from the Courland on May 8th.
I did.You could say something very similar about the RAF Battle pilots in France in 1940.
They were RAF bomber pilots and crews who had the misfortune to be sent to France in Fairey Battles. Others at the same time or a little later were crews in Blenheims and Hampdens which suffered similar losses. At least it could be said that the Battles were attacking something of importance (usually). Far too many were lost dropping leaflets.You could say something very similar about the RAF Battle pilots in France in 1940.
Actually they wore parachutes. The idea was to die on a USN warship. If you were shot down or had engine trouble on the way you parachuted or ditched to allow the opportunity of trying again.If suicidal, why did Kamikaze wore flight helmets ?
Parachutes have an unlimited warranty. If it doesn't work take it back for a free replacement.Did these pilots get any training on using the parachute?
Did our pilots in WW2, in WW1 they were seen as being bad for morale.In Saburo Sakai's book "Samauri", he mentioned something about IJN had nothing like the USN's SAR. I did read it a long time ago and my memory is kinda' shaky. I guess the 'chutes were for a problem close to the home field. Did these pilots get any training on using the parachute?
Late war kamikaze pilots barely got enough training, period.In Saburo Sakai's book "Samauri", he mentioned something about IJN had nothing like the USN's SAR. I did read it a long time ago and my memory is kinda' shaky. I guess the 'chutes were for a problem close to the home field. Did these pilots get any training on using the parachute?
As I said they were supposed to die on the deck of a US aircraft aircraft carrier or at least an LST. The idea wasn't just to die it was to kill as many Americans as possible. Dying at the hands of a Grumman was not the objectiveI wasn't aware that Kamikaze pilots were issued parachutes before. It seems to send a mixed message.
Somewhere (not on the Internet), I heard that the bomber squadrons in the ETO had greater casualty rates than kamikaze squadrons.If you army then you in foxhole and the bad guys are coming at you then you ain't got choices. The choices have been made for you.
But let's say you're based at an English air base and you're sleeping in a warm bed with cooked meals and all you have to do is get in that bomber and fly over Germany and get killed. How much do you really want to get in that bomber?
Kinda maybe not so much.
If you army then you in foxhole and the bad guys are coming at you then you ain't got choices. The choices have been made for you.
But let's say you're based at an English air base and you're sleeping in a warm bed with cooked meals and all you have to do is get in that bomber and fly over Germany and get killed. How much do you really want to get in that bomber?
Kinda maybe not so much.