Which side would you fly for?....... (1 Viewer)

Which side would you fly for?

  • Total voters
    122

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

American mechanics weren't masters at it, everyone did it. It's what you do to a damaged plane.
 
i would fly with the allies in mosquitos doing night fighter missions. Also I believe when America entered the war and got going they had the best air force of all
 
No. The main reasons the Americans had that air force was because of the British. And even then the RAF was on par with the USAAF.
 
In quality, they probably were, but not quantity. I know that was because of the disparity in industrial base and the fact that American industry wasn't touched by the war but I thought I would make the point.
 
Bader, nice to see you hear and welcome!

That, B-24 pic is a nice one, really interesting. Yes all ground crews were very gifted at keeping planes in the air.

The japs even flew captured or crippled aircraft to report on the bomber formations.
 
I gift that is needed to be in the ground crew, these people weren't dumb.
 
I know of a few American crew chiefs who were decorated for their plane flying so many missions without an abort. Did the British do the same thing?
 
No, the British reward their people for going above and beyond the call of duty. What you described would be a pat on the back for doing a job well done, but their job nevertheless.

I don't know how you'd take this, but the American military hands out medals for no reason.
 
I consider that recognizing people for doing a job far better than their peers. Having a combat plane fly 76 combat missions (I believe that is the number I saw) was an impressive number. And it's not like he got the CMH for it. I think it was only a Bronze Star.

That being said America has given out medals where they weren't deserved (and withheld them where they were) but I think all countries have done that. I saw something on TV yesterday where a cook was decorated for carrying hot chow up to the line while the men on the line were not. That was a mistake! In the cause of decorating ground crews who were exceptional in their work, I think it was well deserved.
 
Why not decorate a well deserving crew or plane cheif 8) Most of the time the airforce would have not been able to fly at all because of the attrition rates.

C.C, is that a Pe-2?
 
Thanks for the help. It looked a little like the Pe-2, but I made a few compairisions and well now I know better.

C.C. you seem to like the Italian aircraft that did not do that well. Save the SM.79 and 81 two nice transport/bomber I also like!
 
breda 88 is easier to remember cos of the huge engines 8) yup, i dont really care how good or bad a plane is, it doesnt affect how much i like it or not 8)
 
Well in Britain we don't reward people for doing their job. If you keep an aircraft flying for 76 missions, that's your job. That's what you're supposed to do, you're doing it well, and that's what is expected.
If an aircraft technician was working on an aircraft and the base came under attack then the person got on a MG and defended the place, he would be rewarded because defending the base isn't his job but he did it. That deserves a medal. Even then he might get in trouble for leaving his post because getting that aircraft in the air is his priority.
 
So if a fighter pilot served a meal did he get a medal?
And why were any British pilots decorated at all? Wasn't shooting down planes or bombing targets simply doing their job?
 
Now you're just being silly, and I doubt a RAF pilot ever served a meal anyway.
No, you can still be brave in a plane. For example they could get jumped by 10 enemy planes while their was only 3 of them and shoot down all their enemy even though they had a perfect oppurtunity to escape. Or doing daring raids, like Amiens.
Pilots are expected to bomb and shoot down planes, doing this is not rewarded. Doing this in extreme conditions, or with all the odds against you, is rewarded.

Just face it, Americans get handed medals for nothing. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.
 
So the pilot that does his job well (another way of saying "in extreme circumstances" gets a medal and the ground chief who does his job well gets a "Jolly good show ol' chap!"? People who do their job exceptionally well (regardless of what it is) deserve some form of recognition. And without the crew chief the planes don't fly or take off and then turn back because of mechanical trouble without accomplishing anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
_PabloSniper_
A
Is Mig 21 Better For Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Zipper730
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
5K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register