Which theater of War Would you choose for flying?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Please everyone dont think the part about "Dont tell me I am wrong in the last post I made was inteaded for all of you" It was only inteaded for one person who always tells me I am wrong. So if it is not you, please dont take offense to that comment.

 

[Anonymous]

It depends on when. In 1942, the Germans considered the Med. a different front. After early 1943, they did not.

Given that the Allied forces operating in the Med were entirely seperated from those in the West, I think it is valid to consider it a different front. Certainly in the context of this thread, the Med. and E. Front are different from the W. Front, as they dictate different combat tactics and altitudes, different enemy units, and different living conditions.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Yep, and then my uncle sunk it!

Oh?

Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark. My Uncle twice removed (ie: our common relation is my Mom's great-great grandparent) on my Mother's side.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[lesofprimus]

Interesting fact.........

RG, i agree that the Med should be considered a seperate front...

 

[rebel8303]

I've read the story before but I still like it!!! I love swordfish!!!!!!!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Whether the med front was a different front of the ETO all depends on whether you look at it from the German point of view or the Allied point of view. If you look at from the German no it was not different, if you look at it from the Allied yes it was. Since I look at it from the German point of view then I am wrong because RG_Lunatic says so.

 

[lesofprimus]

Yup....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark.

do you mean he dropped the torp from the swordfish?? 2 things, no-one can prove who dropped the torp that crippled it, it's known to have come from one of two aircraft, secondly the torp didn't sink the ship, it only dissabled the rudder, she was finished off by the royal navy later onn............

 

[Anonymous]

Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark.

do you mean he dropped the torp from the swordfish?? 2 things, no-one can prove who dropped the torp that crippled it, it's known to have come from one of two aircraft, secondly the torp didn't sink the ship, it only dissabled the rudder, she was finished off by the royal navy later onn............

No I mean that he was in charge of the fleet that sunk the Bismark, and was officially recognized by the crown for having done so.

Of course I know it's silly, it was a combine effort and there was a huge amount of luck involved. I was really just kind of making a joke. I think it is absurd that the British credited one man with having "sunk the Bismark".

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Whether the med front was a different front of the ETO all depends on whether you look at it from the German point of view or the Allied point of view. If you look at from the German no it was not different, if you look at it from the Allied yes it was. Since I look at it from the German point of view then I am wrong because RG_Lunatic says so.

Poor Alder, he's being picked on again by the big bad Lunatic

Seriously, it is a matter of terminology. You say the German's considered it the same front. Well, that is only true after 1943, prior to that Africa was a seperate theater, even for the Germans.

To me the more rational way to look at it is by unit deployments. I consider the MTO different than the ETO (West) because the Allied units were entirely different and the Axis units were mostly different and had to be shifted from one to the other. Living conditions were different, occupied nations were different, units were different - to me that means different theaters. To you Alder, well you just want to go by however the Germans defined things, and for political reasons they didn't want to admit they were fighting a 3 front war.

So by your defintion, there was only the ETO and PTO right? Jeeze talk about limiting the discussion. For purposes of this discussion doesn't it make sense to break the areas of the war up into as many different areas as possible?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No if you read the posts I said earlier I said there was the ETO, PTO and Afrika. Secondly I do not look at everything from the German side. I only look at the German side of things when it makes sense to me as a German. I also give credit to the US and the British. I am not making them out to be inferior or anything, hell they one the war! You can not say that I only say these things because I am German. I happen to be an American citizen and have been so for a number of years now and am proud of that. I just dont like being told I am wrong for something that I am not. If you had actually read the post I said there was the ETO, PTO and Afrika. The Germans had the West Front, the Ost Front, and Afrika. Also I would hope you know that most of the "Med Theatre" as you call it is in Europe which is why the Germans classifed it in either the ETO or the Afrika Theatre depending on where you are talking about. If you are talking about Italy and mainland Europe it is the ETO if you are talking about Malta, Krete and below it is Afrika. I never said you were wrong in what you said I just said I consider it the way the Germans did, now is that wrong?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

excuse me it was won the war not one the war

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And I have to rephase something in my post about the most of the med theatre being in Europe. That did not come out the way I wanted to post it. The northern part of the "Med Theatre is in Europe", The southern part is in North Africa. Therefore I consider the so called "Med Theatre" either the ETO or the Afrika theatre.

 

[cheddar cheese]

I agree there - I was just about to point that out.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It just makes sense to me.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yep.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not saying that he is wrong but it is not how I see it.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not saying that he is wrong but it is not how I see it.

I understand how you see things. Please try to see how I see things.

I don't really care what the official classifications were in answering this poll question. To me what matters is the conditions faced by the pilots involved. With this criteria, there were a lot more "theaters" than just the 3-5 typically considered. With respect to the MTO, prior to the Allies capturing Rome, conditions for the pilots of both sides were very different than those stationed on the what we call the Western Front (France). The planes were usually not quite as advanced, fighting altitudes were generally lower, and living conditions were different.

The same holds true for the Pacific. It is hard to consider the conditions of the USN's fight against the IJN to have been the same as those of the USAAF's fight against the IJA in Burma and China. There was some overlap, but these were really very different conditions in many respects.

So, for purposes of this particular poll question, I think it makes sense to divide the theaters up as much as reasonably possible, not to reduce them as a matter of nomenclature w.r.t. any one sides official point of view.

That's my opinion, and like your's, it is neither wrong nor right. I just think it is more "reasonable" w.r.t. this particular poll question.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

excuse me it was won the war not one the war

You realize you can edit your own posts right?

 

[wmaxt]

One of the reasons I really like this site is that everyone is allowed to have an opinion. The thing about aircraft is that there are points that are and will renain sudjective. like the toughest fighter there are aircraft that went down the reason of which we will never know. Ie. how many P-38 went down to bad fuel or improper proceedures - a great many - and not due to the aircraft or how many went down because the attacking aircraft was never seen. Don't take the opposing views personaly I'm shure its not ment that way.

Sorry for sticking my nose in!