PDA

View Full Version : Would any of you volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany WW2?



MB_Avro_UK
02-16-2007, 06:31 PM
Hi all,

Your chances of survival either as RAF or US would have been limited;and especially 1943-44.

Maybe 30% survival rate. Would you have volunteered?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
02-16-2007, 06:31 PM
Hi all,

Your chances of survival either as RAF or US would have been limited;and especially 1943-44.

Maybe 30% survival rate. Would you have volunteered?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-16-2007, 06:47 PM
Well, I would've volunteered if given the chance to be a pathfinder flying Mossies. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have flown in Bomber Command or the Mighty 8th by choice!

TSmoke
02-16-2007, 08:09 PM
It's kind of unfair and a loaded question..would you have volunteered?

Different styles of being raised in the 20's and 30's as there is these days. No discipline in the vast majority of 17-22 yr old a recruiters prime target age wise. So thats a major difference.

Given the politics and propaganda, the government had much tighter rein on what went to press and what was released to the public.

To be fair I would say that as things are these days most would say no.

Any line ups at recruitment offices these days due to the Afghan. or Iraq situation?

Nope.... and survival chances are a heck of alot better than the 30% in late 43 early 44.

It all comes down to consumer information a bad product no matter how you shine up the info is still a bad product. So No.

LStarosta
02-16-2007, 08:15 PM
Hell, I want to deploy as soon as I commission. Don't ask me why coz I dunno.

But today is different than WWII, so I couldn't tell you.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2007, 08:50 PM
In those days the country was seriously under threat of being taken over.
These days wars are much more political, its not a war where we are going to loose control of our country.

In fact we are more like the 'Axis' of WW2 in that we hope to gain from the war, not lose. Its not a critical situation for us.

If there was an agressor trying to take control of my country (or maybe an allies country) I would volunteer, but not for any other reason.

PFflyer
02-16-2007, 10:38 PM
No way.

Treetop64
02-16-2007, 10:59 PM
Knowing what we know now? Nope!

All those guys were better men that I can ever hope to be.

darkhorizon11
02-17-2007, 02:13 AM
Truthfully everyone was hyped on propaganda and at the time none of the recruits really knew how bad it was. And well to be honest I'm sure those who did smartly figured it would be a bad idea to tell them that 7 of every 10 wouldn't come back...

StG2_Schlachter
02-17-2007, 02:37 AM
Eh, no http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

general_kalle
02-17-2007, 02:42 AM
if i had to serve in any war role in world war two it would be USAAF fighter groups. i want to fly p51.

Klemm.co
02-17-2007, 03:20 AM
A similar question:
Would any of you volunteer for a bombing mission against England in 43 or 44?
I guess the ratio for coming back would be something like 1 out of ten or lower.

ViktorViktor
02-17-2007, 03:27 AM
I would be willing to fly A MISSION, the odds that I would survive are acceptable.

But flying bombing missions for an entire tour of duty is another matter. Would probably try to arrange to fly in an air combat unit with a higher rate of survival, like some of you others have mentioned.

But if ordered to fly a complete tour, I would comply. Hitler was a menace to the world, without a doubt.

ViktorViktor
02-17-2007, 03:33 AM
The odds of coming back from ONE mission in the 8th Air Force in 43-44 were pretty good. It was the odds completing a combat tour of 25-30 bombing missions that were less than 50% (can't remember the percentage, but this is discussed in Roger Freeman's 'The Mighty Eighth').

Does somebody know what the percentage was ?

Lucius_Esox
02-17-2007, 04:24 AM
Nope

WWSensei
02-17-2007, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TSmoke:
To be fair I would say that as things are these days most would say no.

Any line ups at recruitment offices these days due to the Afghan. or Iraq situation?

Nope.... and survival chances are a heck of alot better than the 30% in late 43 early 44.

It all comes down to consumer information a bad product no matter how you shine up the info is still a bad product. So No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to check your facts. US Army and Marine Corps recruiting goals have been exceeded for the past 3 years and the 17-22 year olds are a far better lot than you give them credit for.

Special salute to our WWFalcon--one of those 18 year olds who volunteered and is now in Iraq as a US Marine.

anarchy52
02-17-2007, 05:43 AM
Young people do not have enough wisdom that comes from experiencing life. Also young males are full of testosterone - they want to fight, or at least they think they do...their minds are easy to convert (brainwash) into killing mode.

In WW2 it was different, there was a clear idea who the bad guys are and what are we fighting for. Today, the western world is more in the role of nazis then the allies. Only thing stopping us from carpet bombing the cities "kill'em all, let God sort'em out" is the fact that general public can not stomach too much blood.

Back on topic, with the knowledge we have today, no-one sane would volunteer, I don't think that survival rates of bomber crews were advertised on recruiting posters.

WWSensei
02-17-2007, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Young people do not have enough wisdom that comes from experiencing life. Also young males are full of testosterone - they want to fight, or at least they think they do...their minds are easy to convert (brainwash) into killing mode.

In WW2 it was different, there was a clear idea who the bad guys are and what are we fighting for. Today, the western world is more in the role of nazis then the allies. Only thing stopping us from carpet bombing the cities "kill'em all, let God sort'em out" is the fact that general public can not stomach too much blood.

Back on topic, with the knowledge we have today, no-one sane would volunteer, I don't think that survival rates of bomber crews were advertised on recruiting posters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. There is so much ignorance of history and so much **** piled into that one post it's not even worth taking apart.

Young people aren't nearly as stupid as you paint them. Try talking to them. The West are like the Nazis? Oh please spare me--that is such a enormous, hyperbolic display of not having a clue what facists are really like and a completly brainwashed view of the west.

WW2 was all black hats and white hats? Umm, no, the western allies very nearly sided with Hitler to fight Stalin on a couple of occasions and there was a large contingent of the US that thought we should JOIN Germany to fight England--considered to be the imperialist empire by many at the time.

We don't "carpet bomb" because it isn't necessary from a military point of view. It was done in WW2 because there was no capability to do precision. There isn't a good, tactical or strtegic reason to carpet bomb a city. It doesn't gain you anything. Has nothing to do with public opinion. You can't fight a war based on public opinion--you fight to achieve military goals. If you based your entire strategy on public opinion you would just end up capitulating all the time--like England did with Chamberlain when he bowed to public opinion to Hitler prior to WW2.

FWIW, I was a volunteer--in fighters for ground attack missions. On many of those missions our survival rate was rated at a greater than 50% probability of being shot down. You don't have to be insane to volunteer--just need a sense of duty. Why did I? Because I was firmly convinced I was better at it than anyone else in my squadron and if I didn't do it then one of them would get killed. Same reason a lot grunts fight and do brave things (regardless of country)--to help save the life of a buddy next to them.

The concept of soldiers being brainless and brain-washed killing machines is a fantasy born of Hollywood. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about the military.

Pirschjaeger
02-17-2007, 08:02 AM
I'd say the younger are much more informed these days about international politics, whether they like it or not.

As for myself, no way. I'd never be part of something that needlessly involves killing where the majority are innocent.

Before I get flamed I'll go further to say that I don't blame the guys who were involved in the bombings in WW2. We have something they didn't; hind-sight.

DKoor
02-17-2007, 08:07 AM
Volunteer?
No way. They would have to drag me with excessive force into the cockpit, and for that matter into any kind of military force.

I'm just not that kind of guy.

I'm not an idiot. http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/gm_shrug.gif

shotdownski
02-17-2007, 08:55 AM
Sensei,

With all due respect, your statement: "US Army and Marine Corps recruiting goals have been exceeded for the past 3 years" is misleading. The Army has adjusted their recruiting goals downward each year since 2005. At the same time they've lowered the standards for new recruits (ASVAB scores, criminal records, drug use, medical/psychological issues, etc) and increased the age limit to 42. These are not positive signs.

V/R,

Shotdownski



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TSmoke:
To be fair I would say that as things are these days most would say no.

Any line ups at recruitment offices these days due to the Afghan. or Iraq situation?

Nope.... and survival chances are a heck of alot better than the 30% in late 43 early 44.

It all comes down to consumer information a bad product no matter how you shine up the info is still a bad product. So No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to check your facts. US Army and Marine Corps recruiting goals have been exceeded for the past 3 years and the 17-22 year olds are a far better lot than you give them credit for.

Special salute to our WWFalcon--one of those 18 year olds who volunteered and is now in Iraq as a US Marine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ViktorViktor
02-17-2007, 10:34 AM
This question is for those of you who would not fly a mission -

What then, would you be willing to do to oppose Nazi Germany ? Would you have been willing to let Hitler retain his power ?

Pirschjaeger
02-17-2007, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
This question is for those of you who would not fly a mission -

What then, would you be willing to do to oppose Nazi Germany ? Would you have been willing to let Hitler retain his power ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be willing to do many other things, but indiscriminant killing is not one of them. I'd gladly give my life before killing women and children. That being said, I couldn't even be forced into a bombing mission.

Insuber
02-17-2007, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:

We don't "carpet bomb" because it isn't necessary from a military point of view. It was done in WW2 because there was no capability to do precision. There isn't a good, tactical or strtegic reason to carpet bomb a city. It doesn't gain you anything. Has nothing to do with public opinion. You can't fight a war based on public opinion--you fight to achieve military goals. ...
It shows a complete lack of knowledge about the military. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Sensei, I disagree with this one. Without entering into the debate "right or not", from a technical standpoint carpet bombing enemy cities (or "area bombing","strategic bombing", or even better "dehousing") was practiced by all of the countries that had the possibility to do it (UK, USA, Germany, Russia, Japan) to break the population morale.

Examples are Dresden and Berlin in Germany, Milan in Italy, Coventry and London in England, Guernica in Spain, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, Warsaw in Poland, Moscow, Leningrad, etc. Destroy enemy's morale and reduce their workforce was the strategic goal for these undiscriminate city levellings.

More info for instance on Wikipedia, under Frederick Lindemann, Viscount Cherwell, or Sir Arthur Travers Harris, 1st Baronet.

Best regards,
Insuber

Kurfurst__
02-17-2007, 11:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

25+ pager be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
02-17-2007, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Your chances of survival either as RAF or US would have been limited;and especially 1943-44.

Maybe 30% survival rate. Would you have volunteered?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i learned never to volunteer.

fordfan25
02-17-2007, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
This question is for those of you who would not fly a mission -

What then, would you be willing to do to oppose Nazi Germany ? Would you have been willing to let Hitler retain his power ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>only if he asked real nice.....and sliped me a 5'er$

fordfan25
02-17-2007, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemm.co:
A similar question:
Would any of you volunteer for a bombing mission against England in 43 or 44?
I guess the ratio for coming back would be something like 1 out of ten or lower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i would not willingly go into england for any resone lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BaldieJr
02-17-2007, 12:33 PM
I wouldn't have volunteered. Instead I would have gotten up early one morning, had a big breakfast, and left for Berlin. I'd have stopped by Chuck Norris' house and told him to follow me. Then we would have walked into Germany with Rambo carrying our supplies (Beef Stew and condoms). Pirates all around the world would have our back.

Chuck would smack hitler so hard his eardrum would shoot out and kill a kid across the street. I'd deliver my victory speech to the UN and have sex with their daughters.

But I never volunteer.

NAFP_supah
02-17-2007, 12:49 PM
VERY nice sig there Shotdownski :P

leitmotiv
02-17-2007, 01:06 PM
Since I love bombers, the answer is obvious.

waffen-79
02-17-2007, 01:45 PM
h311 no

Monty_Thrud
02-17-2007, 01:58 PM
Yes, i would, but i would bail out over Berlin and parachute down right next to mR hIltEr while he was on one of his shouting sprees and snot 'im square in the forehead and say OI! NO!...now don't do it again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

horseback
02-17-2007, 01:59 PM
Actually, once you were in the aviation training pool, your ability to make choices was over. As for the casualty rates, the first six or eight months of the heavies' operations had some senior bomber commanders thinking they didn't really need escort fighters (Hub Zemke relates the story of an 8th AF conference he attended in late summer 1943, where Curtis LeMay derided the fighter force mercilessly).

Rhetorically speaking, though, the answer for me is yes, I'd volunteer. The job needed doing, and if I could help get it done, okay, I'd be there, and you'd be able to find my name on the memorial at Bury St Edmunds.

cheers

horseback

MB_Avro_UK
02-17-2007, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Actually, once you were in the aviation training pool, your ability to make choices was over. As for the casualty rates, the first six or eight months of the heavies' operations had some senior bomber commanders thinking they didn't really need escort fighters (Hub Zemke relates the story of an 8th AF conference he attended in late summer 1943, where Curtis LeMay derided the fighter force mercilessly).

Rhetorically speaking, though, the answer for me is yes, I'd volunteer. The job needed doing, and if I could help get it done, okay, I'd be there, and you'd be able to find my name on the memorial at Bury St Edmunds.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The British and American Bomber crews believed that they were doing the right thing.

They were avenging unprovoked Nazi bomber raids that happened all over Europe.

The Nazis would have done even worse had they the capability.

The free world wanted an end to WW2. I accept that the bombing methods were crude by today's standards.

But Albert Speer (Nazi Armaments Minister) stated that the allied bombing raids created a 'second front' because of the weaponry and manpower that was required to defend Germany.

What is ineresting to me is that NO country occupied by the Nazis has a 'hang-up' or moral problem regarding the Allied bombing of Germany.

And let's not forget that almost 100,000 British and American bomber crew members were killed fighting for freedom against the Nazis.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

dugong
02-17-2007, 09:21 PM
Hindsight is 20/20. I bet the brave men who gave their lives did not know the statistics. So, back then maybe I would have. Now, who knows.

Tab_Flettner
02-17-2007, 09:58 PM
"The British and American Bomber crews believed that they were doing the right thing."

Not entirely true. These were not crews unaware of the implications of what they were doing by any stretch of the imagination.

On 28 March 1945, Winston Churchill drafted a memo to the British Chiefs of Staff in which he denounced the bombing of cities as "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction".

Pirschjaeger, you are a smart guy.

And me? My father served in Number Six Bomber Command, Leeming, Yorkshire. 427 and 429 sqn.

Flame away.....

msalama
02-17-2007, 10:14 PM
Well, as much as I love heavies - more than fighters actually - would I have volunteered, knowing what we do now? In all honesty no, I don't think so...

Pirschjaeger
02-18-2007, 12:51 AM
Bombers and propaganda were misused during the war.

I've seen examples of pamphlets used in wartime in the effort to discourage and demoralize the populations. They obviously lacked imagination and insight.

They are full of statements. Statements are always arguable. They should have been full of questions. Questions are not arguable but rather inspire thought and creative thinking. If you want to convince someone they are wrong, help them to figure it out for themselves.

With the right propaganda, I'd be willing to fly missions that drop well thought-out propaganda rather than killing devices. The power of the pen is much greater than that of the bomb.

I would of course require a shrp knife. A 20kg bundle of pamphlets falling at 182mph could do a lot of damage.

Don't forget to cut the straps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2007, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
This question is for those of you who would not fly a mission -

What then, would you be willing to do to oppose Nazi Germany ? Would you have been willing to let Hitler retain his power ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slightly strange thread post. First the Title asks one question, then when you look at the actual post, it asks a completely different question like some kind of challenge?

I see this as a personal moral question.

If you`re asking if I would volunteer to bomb Germany (including its cities) as a WWII British pilot at the time. Well, I`d probably wait since bombing the Reich was an insanely dangerous job.

If you`re asking if I would do it if I was ordered to - of course, no hesitation. They bombed us relentlessy and wouldn`t have stopped. They started, we`ll finish it.

Failing that, I`d join the infantry.

DarkWingDuck...
02-18-2007, 04:18 AM
what a stupid fecking question

DKoor
02-18-2007, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarkWingDuck...:
what a stupid fecking question </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

ViktorViktor
02-18-2007, 07:24 AM
I don't think it's stupid question. To me, the question boils down to - 'Are you willing to volunteer to risk your life under the given conditions?'. And that leads me to wonder if anything is worth risking one's life for. This is one of the most important questions in life. So it's very interesting to read the responses.

I don't learn squat about you when we argue over which plane won teh war or the turn rate of this or that plane. (But it is fun.) But I find out something essential about what makes you tick when you answer a question about volunteering to do something dangerous.

Even when the answer is quack.

fuzzychickens
02-18-2007, 07:58 AM
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering, April 1946

Lol, such a haunting quote. Did he really say that?

The fear mongering today has gotten way out of control. I saw a prime example over a week ago when a news anchor on FOX news breaks the "HUGE" news to America that Barack Obama may have attended a muslim school. She goes on to "point out" what a big deal this is as if it's a huge skeleton in his closet. The current political and media atmosphere is so thick with fear and ignorance these days it's sad.

anarchy52
02-18-2007, 08:08 AM
Military rule #1: Never volunteer

Chris0382
02-18-2007, 08:11 AM
I would have taken a hang glider to the White Cliffs of Dover and used a napsack to carry a compliment of small bombs and away I go. Once I caught the first thermal convection current Ide be on my way.........

Then again Ide grab my Green Goblin costume.........

DKoor
02-18-2007, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
'Are you willing to volunteer to risk your life under the given conditions?' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What are those given conditions?
That is the real question...

I can name only one reason when I'm personally willing to risk my life.
Only one thing I value above my life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Military rule #1: Never volunteer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Breeze147
02-18-2007, 08:41 AM
I would have considered volunteering for the 8th Air Force a noble honor.

rcocean
02-18-2007, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
This question is for those of you who would not fly a mission -

What then, would you be willing to do to oppose Nazi Germany ? Would you have been willing to let Hitler retain his power ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) I never would have volunteered for RAF bomber command or 8th AF force since I wouldn't have wanted to risk my life killing civilians.

2) I would never have volunteered period. As someone as stated once you were "in" they put you where they wanted. Thousands of aviation cadets in 44-45 ended up sitting in a foxhole with a Rifle.

3) First choice in WWII - Replace Frank Sinatra.
No draft worries, plenty of money, and the bobby-soxers.

Second Choice - Working as civilian in US Government - see Robert MacNamera

Third choice - Teaching physical fitness in Hawaii - see Ben Hogan

Fourth choice - Making films in Hollywood -See Ronald Reagan.

Last choice - Switzerland

DKoor
02-18-2007, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Last d1tch choice - Switzerland </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fixed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ViktorViktor
02-18-2007, 09:03 AM
DKoor asked:
"What are those given conditions?
That is the real question..."

The given conditions are that it is WW2 and you have the chance to volunteer to fly a bombing mission against Germany.

Here's a quote from Roger A. Freeman's "Mighty Eighth", to give an idea of the loss rate for heavy bombers: "Although losses for April were the heaviest of the war, because of the very large number of bombers operating these only represented 3-6% of total sorties. By comparison, during the costly month of October 1943 losses ran to 9-12% of all sorties."

erco415
02-18-2007, 09:29 AM
I would.

DKoor
02-18-2007, 09:32 AM
No, I already said that. I wouldn't have volunteered. rcocean sums it pretty well for me.
I can understand you and I hope that can you understand this PoV.

It all comes down to priorities.

Volunteers must ask themselves few questions;
Would you accept to get your legs blown off and other parts of your body, would you give up on chicks (because your little man doesn't function anymore) - what would you trade that for? What is the price?

Honor? War victory?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

XyZspineZyX
02-18-2007, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Your chances of survival either as RAF or US would have been limited;and especially 1943-44.

Maybe 30% survival rate. Would you have volunteered?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Volunteered?

I would have been a fighter pilot. I would have taken the tests, passed, and be put on single engine advanced, then joined a fighter squadron overseas. They wouldn't just let me volunteer for some bomber missions. That would be like asking Rembrandt if he would volunteer to paint your outhouse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
02-18-2007, 01:36 PM
Hi all,

I posted this thread as I was wondering as to how attitudes have changed since WW2.

We are all interested in WW2 aviation history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

How did the RAF and US 8th Air Force crews accept that their chances of surviving a 25 mission Tour were virtually nil in 1943 and 1944?

Maybe motivation was stronger for RAF crews as Britain had suffered bombing. But what motivated the Commonwealth crews in the RAF such as the Canadians?

And what motivated the US crews? There had been no direct attack on the USA by the German Luftwaffe.And there were a few US crew members who were of German descent.

Theur were doubters both within RAF and US aircrews as to the moral justification as to the bombings but very,very few asked to be moved to another post.

Within RAF Bomber Command there were crew members drawn from those who had fled Nazi occupation of their homelands and I don't think that they had any moral misgivings as to bombing Germany.

Hindsight is a fantastic gift... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Tab_Flettner
02-18-2007, 01:54 PM
"very,very few asked to be moved to another post."

Yes, well, once you've made aircrew its no problem to be asked to transfer to the gift shop or maybe the mini-donut stand. In wartime. lol.

MB_Avro_UK
02-18-2007, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tab_Flettner:
"very,very few asked to be moved to another post."

Yes, well, once you've made aircrew its no problem to be asked to transfer to the gift shop or maybe the mini-donut stand. In wartime. lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Tab,

The US 8th Air Force accepted transfers and there was no disgrace involved.The US was enlightened as to the circumstances and recognised that it was better to allow a transfer elsewhere.

The RAF did not accept tranfer requests. Any such requests were treated as 'cowardice' and the guy was stripped of his rank in front of the Squadron. He was then posted to 'latrine' duties and his papers were stamped as 'lacking moral fibre' i.e. a coward. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MrOblongo
02-18-2007, 03:25 PM
Theres only one worse place to be in earth...
German U-Boats! ..

Qnd they were volunteers also :s

Marcel_Albert
02-18-2007, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What motivated German soldiers? Works same pretty much for all. Germans, Americans, Italians, French etc. etc. Propaganda and enlist Mk.I. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know but for French soldiers , motivation was very low , because the WWI was on France soil and caused an unbelievable amount of destruction , debts and death , in the 1930's a big part of the country was still not reconstructed , France lost more than 10% of their masculin population at the time , 1.4 millions of dead and more than 8 millions wounded , the daily death casualties in WWI was 900 dead per day for France (1500 dead per day for the Germans ) and most of the people before 1939 used to say " that is the last one ever " referring to the Great War .

The motivation and propaganda was very high in country where a militarist dictature was in place like in Germany or USSR , but UK and France tried everything possible to avoid the war between 1936 and 1939 while they should and could have prevented the war in the egg when the ennemy was still rather weak . But they didn't , instead they were voting social care laws , payed vacations for labours , higher wages for all workers etc.. , when the Nazi Regime was further increasing its control on the population , arming and strengthening their military arsenal and making huge gatherings and openly showing their intentions like at Nuremberg in 1934 but the Western world stayed deaf and didn't prepare properly in tactics (although some people like De Gaulle wrote before the war about large scale mecanized warfare and tank tactics and Rommel read it , but the High command was one war late in that regard ) , material and numbers , as the Germans occupied almost whole Europe in 1941 with 7 millions of men on all fronts , which is a figure nobody could match except the Soviets . The Allies reacted when Poland was invaded , but that was too late , the Czechs had already payed the bill .. and the outcome was already sealed at the time , as the German army was the most powerful , modern and mobile/organised force in Europe , to have direct land borders with them at that time was bad luck .

The motivations got very high just a few weeks/months before the conflict ,but to counter that , in France , the population not only was deeply divided politically between socialist/communists , traditional conservative and extreme-right and sympathiser of fascism (until the liberation , they fought each other ) , but the "phoney war " made it even worse as there is nothing better to kill the morale of the military troops at the front than waiting and doing nothing , and the society they were living in was very peaceful and didn't prepare them for war like if they had born in Russia or Germany as it was not a militarist society where kids were prepared and framed by structures at a very young age ( for instance "fascist youth" hitler jugend" etc..) these guys were far from that , most of them thought it was duty to protect the country , but morale wasn't very high , they were not into "let's build a new order" etc.. ,and to my understanding , in Britain , the morale got very high only after the Germans attacked them .

JSG72
02-18-2007, 03:43 PM
Being myself fascinated by "Reichs Defence".

I would volunteer as a Sturmpilot.

Of course With Hindsight. And fighting on the wrong side.

Appreciating the freedom of choice we have.

MB_Avro_UK
02-18-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What motivated German soldiers? Works same pretty much for all. Germans, Americans, Italians, French etc. etc. Propaganda and enlist Mk.I. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know but for French soldiers , motivation was very low , because the WWI was on France soil and caused an unbelievable amount of destruction , debts and death , in the 1930's a big part of the country was still not reconstructed , France lost more than 10% of their masculin population at the time , 1.4 millions of dead and more than 8 millions wounded , the daily death casualties in WWI was 900 dead per day for France (1500 dead per day for the Germans ) and most of the people before 1939 used to say " that is the last one ever " referring to the Great War .

The motivation and propaganda was very high in country where a militarist dictature was in place like in Germany or USSR , but UK and France tried everything possible to avoid the war between 1936 and 1939 while they should and could have prevented the war in the egg when the ennemy was still rather weak . But they didn't , instead they were voting social care laws , payed vacations for labours , higher wages for all workers etc.. , when the Nazi Regime was further increasing its control on the population , arming and strengthening their military arsenal and making huge gatherings and openly showing their intentions like at Nuremberg in 1934 but the Western world stayed deaf and didn't prepare properly in tactics (although some people like De Gaulle wrote before the war about large scale mecanized warfare and tank tactics and Rommel read it , but the High command was one war late in that regard ) , material and numbers , as the Germans occupied almost whole Europe in 1941 with 7 millions of men on all fronts , which is a figure nobody could match except the Soviets . The Allies reacted when Poland was invaded , but that was too late , the Czechs had already payed the bill .. and the outcome was already sealed at the time , as the German army was the most powerful , modern and mobile/organised force in Europe , to have direct land borders with them at that time was bad luck .

The motivations got very high just a few weeks/months before the conflict ,but to counter that , in France , the population not only was deeply divided politically between socialist/communists , traditional conservative and extreme-right and sympathiser of fascism (until the liberation , they fought each other ) , but the "phoney war " made it even worse as there is nothing better to kill the morale of the military troops at the front than waiting and doing nothing , and the society they were living in was very peaceful and didn't prepare them for war like if they had born in Russia or Germany as it was not a militarist society where kids were prepared and framed by structures at a very young age ( for instance "fascist youth" hitler jugend" etc..) these guys were far from that , most of them thought it was duty to protect the country , but morale wasn't very high , they were not into "let's build a new order" etc.. ,and to my understanding , in Britain , the morale got very high only after the Germans attacked them . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very Good Post...thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

France was of the same opinion as Britain before WW2. Both countries had suffered huge losses in WW1 and did not want a repetition.

But Britain had the benefit of a sea Channel..

Invasion was difficult.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Chris0382
02-18-2007, 06:01 PM
If not misaken Russia was the lesser of 2 evils also. Before they fought Germany 1939-1940, they had taken of part of Romania and threatened hitlers oil supplies, they had invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Russia had attacked Finland threatening hitlers mineral deposits (nickle I think). Im wondering if it wasnt hitler it would have been stalin taking over Europe. One or the other and hitler did it fastest. Russia's army and Airforce was larger than all the worlds combined "ref: World at War"
although it wasnt modern like Germany's.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2007, 08:17 PM
I dont think RUssia were intent on ethnically cleansing the world of a whole race, where they?

They didnt have actual 'death camps' where the whole idea was to exterminate people.

They didnt see some races as 'inferior' and ripe for 'human testing'. I have seen films where German doctors are freezing Russian prisoners of war to test how long pilots can survive in the cold sea after bailing out and the best way to save them. Obviously many died and there were thousands more of these 'experiments' on 'untermenschen'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

If I am right about these points, then I think Russia during WW2 was definitely the lesser of 2 evils.

Actually its not 'Russia' which was the evil, its the Dictator, Stalin. They were all his policies, not 'Russia's'

However as Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland together and carved it up, Britain/France had to be against the Stalinist agression as well as Germanies. However Stalin was further away, Germany had to be delt with first before they could even think of starting on Stalin.

Its like the end of the war when RUssia didnt help the uprising in Poland, but sat back and watched the Germans crush it before they entered Poland. There was really not much the Western Allies could have done, it was simply too far away and there was no way to get there on land. They had enough to deal with on their front and the with the Japanese. Maybe some air drops could have been arranged, but I am sure they didnt realise Russia was holding back until after the event anyway. The uprising cant have lasted more than a few days.

Chris0382
02-18-2007, 08:22 PM
I have to agree Xiolablu3. Just finished War and Rememberance and have to say you have a strong point. I dont actually know enough about stalin to know if hes done anything like hitler. Just know the Russians paid a heavy sacrafice that benefited the world at a bad time. If Germany had there whole army all west or in N Africa things would have been much harder for the allies.

Tab_Flettner
02-18-2007, 08:25 PM
"The RAF did not accept tranfer requests. Any such requests were treated as 'cowardice' and the guy was stripped of his rank in front of the Squadron. He was then posted to 'latrine' duties and his papers were stamped as 'lacking moral fibre' i.e. a coward."

OK, Avro, we agree on something! You are 100% correct. I can't speak about the USAAF, I just don't know. But the RCAF was the same as the RAF on this issue, and being branded LMF would ruin you, and not just in the service. You were finished for life. And thats not to say it didn't happen - it did.

This is a tough discussion for a board like this. One minute its out of control giant WWII apes, then this.

Avro, you seem like a nice guy, please don't think I'm being a smart @ss. This issue is just a little close to home. Literally.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2007, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What motivated German soldiers? Works same pretty much for all. Germans, Americans, Italians, French etc. etc. Propaganda and enlist Mk.I. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know but for French soldiers , motivation was very low , because the WWI was on France soil and caused an unbelievable amount of destruction , debts and death , in the 1930's a big part of the country was still not reconstructed , France lost more than 10% of their masculin population at the time , 1.4 millions of dead and more than 8 millions wounded , the daily death casualties in WWI was 900 dead per day for France (1500 dead per day for the Germans ) and most of the people before 1939 used to say " that is the last one ever " referring to the Great War .

The motivation and propaganda was very high in country where a militarist dictature was in place like in Germany or USSR , but UK and France tried everything possible to avoid the war between 1936 and 1939 while they should and could have prevented the war in the egg when the ennemy was still rather weak . But they didn't , instead they were voting social care laws , payed vacations for labours , higher wages for all workers etc.. , when the Nazi Regime was further increasing its control on the population , arming and strengthening their military arsenal and making huge gatherings and openly showing their intentions like at Nuremberg in 1934 but the Western world stayed deaf and didn't prepare properly in tactics (although some people like De Gaulle wrote before the war about large scale mecanized warfare and tank tactics and Rommel read it , but the High command was one war late in that regard ) , material and numbers , as the Germans occupied almost whole Europe in 1941 with 7 millions of men on all fronts , which is a figure nobody could match except the Soviets . The Allies reacted when Poland was invaded , but that was too late , the Czechs had already payed the bill .. and the outcome was already sealed at the time , as the German army was the most powerful , modern and mobile/organised force in Europe , to have direct land borders with them at that time was bad luck .

The motivations got very high just a few weeks/months before the conflict ,but to counter that , in France , the population not only was deeply divided politically between socialist/communists , traditional conservative and extreme-right and sympathiser of fascism (until the liberation , they fought each other ) , but the "phoney war " made it even worse as there is nothing better to kill the morale of the military troops at the front than waiting and doing nothing , and the society they were living in was very peaceful and didn't prepare them for war like if they had born in Russia or Germany as it was not a militarist society where kids were prepared and framed by structures at a very young age ( for instance "fascist youth" hitler jugend" etc..) these guys were far from that , most of them thought it was duty to protect the country , but morale wasn't very high , they were not into "let's build a new order" etc.. ,and to my understanding , in Britain , the morale got very high only after the Germans attacked them . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very Good Post...thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

France was of the same opinion as Britain before WW2. Both countries had suffered huge losses in WW1 and did not want a repetition.

But Britain had the benefit of a sea Channel..

Invasion was difficult.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I think all the Democracies felt like this. Remember that only 10% of Americans wanted war with Germany in 1941.

It was only Pearl Harbour that dragged the Americans into the war, if it wasnt for the Japanese, the USA may not have entered the war at all, or at least much later, maybe 1943-44. As it was Poland and Czeckoslovakia that dragged Britan/Canada/Aus/NZ/France into the war.

You cannot blame the democracies for not wanting war, they had just seen the destruction and horror of 1914-18, they didnt want the same again. I dont blame them for trying everything to avert another world catastrophie.

Still, its a very very good thing that Britain/Canada/NZ/Aus and France were prepared to go to war over their Ally being invaded. That was quite a gesture considering 1914-18 was not too long ago. Shame they didnt do it over the Czechs, but they did it in the end. Salute for their honour.

fighter_966
02-18-2007, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
If not misaken Russia was the lesser of 2 evils also. Before they fought Germany 1939-1940, they had taken of part of Romania and threatened hitlers oil supplies, they had invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Russia had attacked Finland threatening hitlers mineral deposits (nickle I think). Im wondering if it wasnt hitler it would have been stalin taking over Europe. One or the other and hitler did it fastest. Russia's army and Airforce was larger than all the worlds combined "ref: World at War"
although it wasnt modern like Germany's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If russia was the lesser evil you could ask someone Estonian or Lithunian or Latvian where their disappearead relative is.. BTW Their Kulags
were as effective as concetration camps..And Stalins plan was occypy Finland and to remove all finns to somewhere Siberia, and put russians in place instead, bit like Tsethzens were moved around russia.If that is somehow less gruel than concentration camps I dont know... yes..sorry this came again "what is more gruel or atricious game" my apology

BadA1m
02-18-2007, 09:44 PM
It's hard to say specifically, I'd like to think I would, if I thought it was worth it at the time (as far as volunteering). In general I'm of a mind that a man has never really lived until he finds something worth dying for. Maybe the question should be; what are you willing to be shot at 5:00 AM tomorrow morning for? Kind of eliminates the sticky moral dilemmas and get's right down to what your made of. (and what's REALY important to you)

leitmotiv
02-18-2007, 09:48 PM
Fact of the matter, Stalin's Soviet dictatorship was diabolically evil as was Hitler's fascist dictatorship. They ripped each other to pieces killing millions of hapless people. Stalin crushed Hitler, Hitler left the USSR devastated for a generation, and the USSR was never able to catch up with the capitalist West, thank God. It took poison to destroy poison.

ViktorViktor
02-19-2007, 01:09 AM
Yupp, Stalin and Hitler were world class monsters, but it astonishes still me that Hitler seems to have had some very admirable qualities as well.

He was a leader who had actually served at the front line (in WWI) and had been decorated for his unselfish bravery. He was obviously intelligent, had a great memory for facts and figures. He seems to have been an idealist.

The errors in judgement he made regarding the running of WWII seem to have been intelligent errors, and not stupid ones.

Scary to realize that Hitler was not the egoistic imbecile that he was portrayed as.

Chris0382
02-19-2007, 06:47 AM
I understand a lot of Russian people died in The Great Purges that may have been stalin's doings.

I believe it was just a matter of time before Russia attacked Germanay or Germany attacked Russia. hitler had the upper had and may have errored going into Stalingrad instead of concentration on the oil regions. If he had all the troops available from Stalingrad when he was in site of Moscow..........

Well to make an end I would have to say I would not have rejected the bombing of Germany given that during WW2 it was a culture that supported genocide. (I cant single out just Germany as Aboriginaries were also almost exhausted) in earlier years. I cant confirm; but one hoLlywood film suggested German citizens watching the exterminations as thery were at a footballl match. I hope that was false rumor and just Hollywood propaganda.

Kernow
02-19-2007, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrOblongo:
Theres only one worse place to be in earth...
German U-Boats! ..

Qnd they were volunteers also :s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very true.

Interesting that killing merchant seamen (civilians) is still generally considered to have been 'ok', but killing civilians who build tanks isn't.

msalama
02-19-2007, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the USSR was never able to catch up with the capitalist West, thank God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and yet it was indeed Hitler who, though unintentionally, made the USSR the superpower that it was, in that Stalin et. al. would've never succeeded in gaining all those assets - actually starting with Lend-Lease - and vassal states a.k.a. the Soviet Bloc without WWII and its outcome! Ironic, isn't it?

csThor
02-19-2007, 08:31 AM
The irony is that to a certain degree the East brought the economical decline onto itself. For example until the late 50s and early 60s the GDR had an economical growth rate comparable to the FRG and concerning new technologies both were remarkable similar. Only when the communist authorities turned "hardcore", built the wall and instilled a "purer socialism" (the soviets had to be convinced by Walther Ulbricht to build the wall, they were not in favor because of a potential conflict with the West) the decline began. At that point everyone - most people had been willing and eager to build up a new state - realized who their new masters really were. A lot had already grasped this well before and left the country (in 1961 the GDR was close to bleeding dry) - not necessarily because they were anti-communists, but because they saw no future for them in the GDR (the largest wave left when the agriculture was turned into collective farming by "force" - most farmers were old-fashioned farmers at heart).

And no I would not fly against Germany. I guess I would be one of the Flak guys shooting at you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fighter_966
02-19-2007, 08:44 AM
My fly would have been dictated by history sorry but I would have been Maybe in a nightfighter trying to get some kills... Iam finn

msalama
02-19-2007, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe in a nightfighter trying to get some kills... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No enpä usko, tai ainakin olisit siinä tapauksessa ollut poikkeustapaus muihin rintamatovereihisi verrattuna http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ViktorViktor
02-19-2007, 09:57 AM
Were there any Finn air units participating in Reich Defense ?

I thought the Finns took sides with Germany cuz they were the one country willing to help Finnland fight the Soviet Union. Other than that,they didn't have much in common.

Kernow
02-19-2007, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its like the end of the war when RUssia didnt help the uprising in Poland, but sat back and watched the Germans crush it before they entered Poland. There was really not much the Western Allies could have done, it was simply too far away and there was no way to get there on land. They had enough to deal with on their front and the with the Japanese. Maybe some air drops could have been arranged... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They were. I remember reading of an RAF Liberator bomb-aimer who had gone to the rear to help with a wounded gunner or something, when the Liberator was hit at low-level as they dropped supplies to the Poles. He was blown out of the waist gun hatch and landed on his back in shallow, muddy water; the rest of the crew were killed. Lucky escape.

whiteladder
02-19-2007, 10:57 AM
I always thought as a younger man I would have answered the call to volunteered. As I have got older and had children I`m not as sure that I would now.

We visited a couple of places over the past couple of years that put things into perspective. The American War grave cemetery at Madingley and Duxford air museum. These videos I made show what I mean.

Duxford

http://www.archive.org/download/whiteladderDuxfordDuxford1wmv/Duxford1.wmv

Madingley

http://www.archive.org/download/WhiteladderTributetribu...v_0/tribute_0001.wmv (http://www.archive.org/download/WhiteladderTributetribute0001wmv_0/tribute_0001.wmv)

fighter_966
02-19-2007, 12:31 PM
Well there was times when finnish pilots were in Germany...Getting their Bf109s.. remeber those were flown from there to Finland so in theory with permission .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-19-2007, 06:45 PM
"Would any of you volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany WW2?"

Due to a few grammatical errors(not picking on you Avro) the question is a little vague.

"Would any of you have volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany in WW2?"

Then I'd have to ask, "How many of the bomber crews were volunteers?"

By correcting the grammar, we've eliminated hind-sight. By doing so we can only answer "We'd have done what everyone else was doing." Why would we have done anything different?

"Knowing what you know now, would any of you have volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany in WW2?"

Ah, hind-sight is back. Then we'd obviously have different answers.

Avro, can you choose a the question that is closest to what you want to know? Or was the grammatical error planned? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
02-20-2007, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"How many of the bomber crews were volunteers?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the RAF Bomber Command? They all were.

LEXX_Luthor
02-20-2007, 08:39 AM
Found something recently, and its a brutal read...

WAR IS A RACKET, by retired (died 1940) General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corps...

~&gt; http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

On the homepage, we find Mark Twain's The War Prayer, 100 years old but its still scary today. ... I found it, see below...

no, lexrex is not my site. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-20-2007, 08:44 AM
Ah, here .. The War Prayer ~&gt; http://lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/warprayer.htm

Marcel_Albert
02-20-2007, 08:47 AM
Thanks Lex , interesting article from this man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 10:18 AM
War is always about money. That's obvious to those who want to see. The rest are simply sheep.

Ignorance is bliss, right?

Ob.Emann
02-20-2007, 10:23 AM
One War is Enough, a sobering look back at the Second World War and its consequences by ex-GI Edgar L. Jones (1946). One of my favorites.

One War is Enough (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/nonatlserv.shtml)

ViktorViktor
02-20-2007, 12:48 PM
I would say that war is about gaining power and resources. Or retaining them.

PJ, could you go into more detail about what your slogans mean ?

Surely you're not implying that both parties involved in a war are always 'warring for dollars'?

Some lands, such as Finland during WWII, were fighting a defensive war to retain their independence as a sovereign nation.

Who are the sheep ? The soldiers or the civilians ?

MB_Avro_UK
02-20-2007, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
"Would any of you volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany WW2?"

Due to a few grammatical errors(not picking on you Avro) the question is a little vague.

"Would any of you have volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany in WW2?"

Then I'd have to ask, "How many of the bomber crews were volunteers?"

By correcting the grammar, we've eliminated hind-sight. By doing so we can only answer "We'd have done what everyone else was doing." Why would we have done anything different?

"Knowing what you know now, would any of you have volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany in WW2?"

Ah, hind-sight is back. Then we'd obviously have different answers.

Avro, can you choose a the question that is closest to what you want to know? Or was the grammatical error planned? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi PJ,

Your observation is always valued http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The context was to ask members:

1)Would our forum members have volunteered during WW2 for aircrew bombing duties with no knowledge as to the very high casualties suffered by Allied bomber crews?

2)With today's awareness of such caualties, in hindsight would members still volunteer?

(Maybe in future I should submit Thread Titles to PJ for clearance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Maybe this topic has wider implications. How much in WW2 were recruits/volunteers on <span class="ev_code_RED">ALL</span> sides misinformed through propaganda as to the real situation at the front?

And how did they cope with the realities of combat experience compared to their expectations?

And of those that survived....were they angry at perhaps being deceived?

Or were they 'proud to do their patriotic chore'....(quote from a song that I can't remember from where).

Maybe I am talking about a past generation on all sides that had different social/patriotic attitudes?

Or today, are we more informed?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

DKoor
02-20-2007, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The context was to ask members:

1)Would our forum members have volunteered during WW2 for aircrew bombing duties with no knowledge as to the very high casualties suffered by Allied bomber crews?

2)With today's awareness of such casualties, in hindsight would members still volunteer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Avro, IMO your question isn't really about would you have volunteered knowing NOW that you could die more easily than you could know back then (due to propaganda or whatever), but more "are you willing to die for your country's interests".
I think it's better to formulate it that way.
At least to me, because that is what is important here IMO.

That is why I said "what are those conditions?" to Viktor's question.

Zoom2136
02-20-2007, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
[QUOTE]We don't "carpet bomb" because it isn't necessary from a military point of view. It was done in WW2 because there was no capability to do precision. There isn't a good, tactical or strtegic reason to carpet bomb a city. It doesn't gain you anything. Has nothing to do with public opinion. <span class="ev_code_RED">You can't fight a war based on public opinion--you fight to achieve military goals.</span> If you based your entire strategy on public opinion you would just end up capitulating all the time--like England did with Chamberlain... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Althougt I agree with most of your post... I disagree with the part were you don't fight a war based on "public opinion"... This was true in the 1940s when poeple were "simpler" and less inform... but today with the speed at which the information travels... a government that does not consider the "public opinion" is not going to be in office very long...

And I'm speeking of experience... cause in my past life I was an officer in the canadian armed forces... and politics are part of "managing" a warzone... peace keeping missions are ALL about politics...

As far a militiry being mindlest morons... well its sad that its mostly the bad things that attract attention when so much good goes unspoken for...

And regarding the conduct of the "West"... well I now work in finance... and when you dig a bit more than what you see on TV... you realized that a lot of "Westeners" profit from the presnt war in Afgan and Irak... A lot of the rebuilding contracts go to... well you know... stabilized oil prices help... well you know who... defence spending helps... well you know...

It sad to say but war is great for the economy...

And I sign up at 17 and my grandfather was 16 when he signed up and went to fight (he was with the royal canadian 22nd regiment) and he had NO IDEA of what he was getting himself into... and so did I (even though I claimed otherwise)... Even my grandmother that was 17 or 18 at the time and signed up to ferry Landcaters (among others) for the RAF did not know... Needless to say she was opposed to me surving in the Army... she knew what was waiting... I did not...

BTW... the sence of serving your country in the present conflict is all B.S. in the conflict that were previously mentionned... If it was such of a situation... you would have poeple of ALL social classes enlisting... NOT a majority underpreviledge kids... well that MHO

staticline1
02-20-2007, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
If not misaken Russia was the lesser of 2 evils also. Before they fought Germany 1939-1940, they had taken of part of Romania and threatened hitlers oil supplies, they had invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Russia had attacked Finland threatening hitlers mineral deposits (nickle I think). Im wondering if it wasnt hitler it would have been stalin taking over Europe. One or the other and hitler did it fastest. Russia's army and Airforce was larger than all the worlds combined "ref: World at War"
although it wasnt modern like Germany's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin by outright murder, death camps and the like before WWII would disagree with you.

slappedsilly
02-20-2007, 06:05 PM
That is a hard question for us to answer. At the time, many peoples freedom and or lifes had been taken away. All other freedom on the planet was being threatened. So considering that, and most of us can't even imagine, I think most in here who answered no would have answered yes. Imagine what the world would be like today if the Nazis would have actually won the war. My answer, like my fathers, would have been yes. Freedom is worth fighting for.

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 07:31 PM
Hi Viktor,

I would say that war is about gaining power and resources. Or retaining them.

I agree with you but how can we separate money from power and resources? They do go hand in hand and are the basis for politics.

Take Hitler and his propaganda for example. Do you really think his ultimate goal was to get political power and use it to exterminate the Jewish population? He needed a scape-goat in order to direct the people's anger and use that to his advantage. At the same time he knew the Jewish were holding a lot of money.

The Treaty of Versaille set the stage for Hitler and his crew. The German population was in a sad state. The first thing they needed was stability and a sound economy. Hitler gave them this stability but there was a huge cost that the population couldn't see. Hitler had few choices and Germany was running deeper and deeper into debt.

When a country is deep in debt war has a way of working things out, especially if you win.

Of course Hitler knew just how deep the Roman Catholic Eurpean hatred of Jews went. He wasn't the only politician to try to cash in on it. Even Churchill had written anti-Jewish sentiments. Stalin had already exterminated 11 million in the Ukraine. Anti-Jewism was ripe in the western Catholic world.

So, as many politicians have done and do today, they guild the attention of the sheep away from the politician's own misgivings. The Jews made a good excuse for Germany to invade other countries, thereby gaining resources and power. To add, there was always the lands taken from Germany with the ToV. This made another great excuse.

So the invasion and combat began with Poland and spread through out Europe. Hitler was gaining his much needed resources to pay the bills while the sheep were getting pride, dignity, and economy back.

This is why I asked how many can be separated from power and resources.

Surely you're not implying that both parties involved in a war are always 'warring for dollars'?

Sometimes, but not always. I don't think it's ever a simple case of black or white. There will always be an aggressor and a defender but the degrees of each position vary.

These days you often hear politicians making threats like "We will defend our interests" when referring to foreign resources. Surely you can't say that's not about money. It ain't cook'in oil. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This is also the case of an aggressor trying to disguise himself as a defender for the sake of his heard of sheep.

Finland was, as you mentioned, the defender. The SU wanted to gain the Finnish land and resources and a corridor into Sweden and Norway.

You know, just a side note, I think it's funny when people say "If Hitler had won we'd all be speaking German". Why was Hitler isolating himself from his own people? Why did he distrust even his closest followers? He knew people didn't agree with him and he also knew that given the slightest chance, the closest to him would have killed him.

Stalin was the true thread to the world and freedom. Had Stalin had more military power he would have taken all of Europe. That is scary. He had a better chance of achieving his goals than Hitler did. We should be saying "If Stalin had won we'd all be under tight control and freedom would be an abstract noun".

Who are the sheep ? The soldiers or the civilians?

Soldiers start out as civilians. Civilians are the sheep and in most cases the soldiers on both sides end up the victims of their own leadership.

Xiolablu3
02-20-2007, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by staticline1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
If not misaken Russia was the lesser of 2 evils also. Before they fought Germany 1939-1940, they had taken of part of Romania and threatened hitlers oil supplies, they had invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Russia had attacked Finland threatening hitlers mineral deposits (nickle I think). Im wondering if it wasnt hitler it would have been stalin taking over Europe. One or the other and hitler did it fastest. Russia's army and Airforce was larger than all the worlds combined "ref: World at War"
although it wasnt modern like Germany's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin by outright murder, death camps and the like before WWII would disagree with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there is a difference, like Chris is pointing out.

Stalins camps were 'work' camps, the fact that people died there was a result of hte terrible conditions, but they werent sent there to die because of their race/colour etc.

The Nazis sent the Jews and 'untermensch' to camps purely for Extermination, beliving they were 'inferior' humans.

I think we can definitely say this is much worse.

The extermination of a whole race, versus work camps with very poor conditions and some political murders.

Both are terrible regimes, but its quite clear that a group of people intent on exterminating a whole race, Women and Children too, and sending them to camps purely to gas them in massive numbers, is by far the worst.

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 07:51 PM
Hi Avro,

1)Would our forum members have volunteered during WW2 for aircrew bombing duties with no knowledge as to the very high casualties suffered by Allied bomber crews?

That's a "no-brainer". I can't imagine any member in here that wouldn't give their joysticks up for one ride in a WW2 bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I don't think we are any different than those who lived during that era, with exception to information and hind-sight. With this in mind I can't imagine we'd have done anything differently. Whatever they did, we'd do.

2)With today's awareness of such caualties, in hindsight would members still volunteer?

Now the situation is totally different. Who'd want to be part of a civilian bombing campaign? Even near the end, Churchill was feeling the guilt. Today, we also know that bombing civilians didn't work, so while would anyone volunteer for man-slaugher en mass? I do believe that most in here would volunteer for other duties that did actually work. But like your question asked, that's with hindsight in mind.

Maybe this topic has wider implications. How much in WW2 were recruits/volunteers on ALL sides misinformed through propaganda as to the real situation at the front?

99%? The pen is a very powerful weapon.

And how did they cope with the realities of combat experience compared to their expectations?

I'm guessing self-defense, ethics supression, and anger management. I've never been in war but this is how I cope with my wife. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And of those that survived....were they angry at perhaps being deceived?

Good question. I know many Germans were. Ask a Vietnam vet or wait a while and as an Iraq War vet.

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 07:55 PM
Hi Zoom,

I liked your post. BTW, I've often wondered about how much politics come into play in the ordinary soldier's daily life while on peace keeping duty.

I think many people think it's just a matter of patrolling and confinscating sharp objects from the locals. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi PJ,

Your observation is always valued http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha, you just want me to make it go 10 pages, don't chya? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-20-2007, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by staticline1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
If not misaken Russia was the lesser of 2 evils also. Before they fought Germany 1939-1940, they had taken of part of Romania and threatened hitlers oil supplies, they had invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Russia had attacked Finland threatening hitlers mineral deposits (nickle I think). Im wondering if it wasnt hitler it would have been stalin taking over Europe. One or the other and hitler did it fastest. Russia's army and Airforce was larger than all the worlds combined "ref: World at War"
although it wasnt modern like Germany's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin by outright murder, death camps and the like before WWII would disagree with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there is a difference, like Chris is pointing out.

Stalins camps were 'work' camps, the fact that people died there was a result of hte terrible conditions, but they werent sent there to die because of their race/colour etc.

The Nazis sent the Jews and 'untermensch' to camps purely for Extermination, beliving they were 'inferior' humans.

I think we can definitely say this is much worse.

The extermination of a whole race, versus work camps with very poor conditions and some political murders.

Both are terrible regimes, but its quite clear that a group of people intent on exterminating a whole race, Women and Children too, and sending them to camps purely to gas them in massive numbers, is by far the worst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Xiolablu3,

I think that's just a little too black and white.

First, there was the SU extermination of Jews in the Ukraine. This number was set at 11 million. This was before WW2.

But, things were changing during the course of WW2 with regards to Nazis, Jews, and camps. Near the end it was all about rapid extermination.

What would be the lsser of two evils: rapid extermination or slowly worked and starved to death?

In my opinion, there is no lesser. But, the discussion is all about opinions. Opinions are neither right or wrong. In Norman Davies's "Europe, a History" he, in his opinion, chose the Nazi program as being the lesser.

msalama
02-20-2007, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This number was set at 11 million. This was before WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to what sources? IIRC some 10 million people altogether died in the Ukrainian famine, and of those some 1-2% (IIRC again) were Jews.

And oh yeah, IBTL. I've a premonition of this thread turning into s**te pretty soon if we get into this who's-the-better-mass-murderer BS again...

Chris0382
02-20-2007, 09:24 PM
From Staticline

snip
"I'm sure the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin by outright murder, death camps and the like before WWII would disagree with you."

I should hope so as all things can be relative. I knew the answer would come out as I didn't have all the facts but 20 million is a number I remember reading someplace. What happened to all the bodies?

czarcrazyman
02-20-2007, 11:49 PM
My grandfather did for two tours. With the 15th Air Force, 376th Heavy Bomb Group The "Liberandos". Veteran of Operation Tidal Wave over Ploesti, Romania.

Richardsen
02-21-2007, 03:02 AM
Life as a pilot was hell back then, so i would not volunteered as a bomber or fighterpilot.
But at the same time, pepole where seeing ww2 in a different way than we to today.

A flightinstructor or a test pilot maybe would have been nice.

ViktorViktor
02-21-2007, 05:54 AM
Hi PJ -
I wasn't disagreeing with you about the relevance of money in war. But I look at money as an abstraction of the amount of power and resources one has, which can be converted into services and goods. So I felt better saying power (is power an abstraction as well?) and resources.

I thought Hitler used the mistreatment of ethnic German minorities by the majority as an excuse to invade countries, not the presence of Jews. But either way, it was a cover-up for the real invasion reasons, which you mentioned.

Hitler had more on his mind than balancing the national checkbook when he started invading countries. He envsioned an empire on the same scale as that of the Roman Empire (1000-year Reich). He wouldn't have stopped taking over countries after he got Germany out of debt. That's why he had to be stopped himself.

In a later post you discussed soldiers and 'the realities of combat experience compared to their expectations'. I don't think it's fair to lump the experiences of WWII combatants together with those who fought in Vietnam or Iraq. My father saw more than his share of combat in WWII as paratrooper. He has told me of his experiences during WWII and never once mentioned that he felt deceived or misinformed by his superiors during this time. He said he would do it again. Lies happened, but you don't hear American WWII vets complaining that they were hoodwinked too often. They believed in what they were doing - fighting against Nazi Germany and Japan. As far as I can see, they weren't fooled. Vietnam and probably Iraq, however, are different matters.

My father is not blindly patriotic, by the way. I remember him telling me (before I was even a teenager) that he didn't know how long the Vietname war was going to go on, but that that was a war to avoid if at all possible.

Chris0382
02-21-2007, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">thought Hitler used the mistreatment of ethnic German minorities by the majority as an excuse to invade countries, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
thought Hitler used the mistreatment of ethnic German minorities by the majority as an excuse to invade countries,

For one they staged the Polish take over of the German radio station on the border as an excuse to invade Poland. All sorts of childish propaganda worthy of a lunatic.

History had it that people of Jewish dissent forming thier own little communities in Poland were in the markets they would charge higher prices to outsiders and be exclusive amongst themselves. Although not really nice, thats how the world works today and obviously did not warrant the action hitler took.

Also people of Jewish dissent were always educated (part of their religion practically) so they always obtained high positions were they could have influence over people and did step on toes at times.

staticline1
02-21-2007, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
From Staticline

snip
"I'm sure the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin by outright murder, death camps and the like before WWII would disagree with you."

I should hope so as all things can be relative. I knew the answer would come out as I didn't have all the facts but 20 million is a number I remember reading someplace. What happened to all the bodies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite exactly sure what happened to the bodies, my best guess would be similar to what we saw in the Balkins in the 90's with mass graves. The Soviets made no disticntion who they killed. As to the gulag camps those can be in every way considered a death camp, with a 1-2% survival rate at best that would make the defination as Pirschjaeger has pointed out. The thing that we can learn now is what happens when the ultra far right starts talking about blind patriotism, external forces that may harm our security or the far left when they talk about ideas of equality, solidarity, social justice, an end to misery, and power to the oppressed, in short it ain't pretty.

MB_Avro_UK
02-21-2007, 04:38 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for your posts but can we keep this thread on topic please?

Reverting to topic.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I met a couple of WW2 RAF Bomber pilots who flew with my father when he was an airline pilot.

As a boy I asked them about what it was like but they didn't discuss anything with me...

My father said that they didn't comment much about the war as it was regarded as not the thing to talk about.It was regarded as 'bragging' to speak of experiences.

But what I did learn was that these guys were under great pressure and did not 'enjoy' their duties.

One such guy was piloting a Wellington bomber over Germany at night. He was not in a formation of bombers and the moon was bright. He and his crew watched an Me 109 stalking them without success for about 10 minutes.

The Wellington gunners could not fire as it would have given their position away.(And the small calibre of their guns would have been next to useless anyway).

It was a long 10 minutes for the Wellington crew..

The 109 was probably been guided by ground control radar vectors??

The 109 did not see them and obviously they survived.

But if the fighter had seen them they would have stood no chance against cannons.

The point I am making is that the pilot of the Wellington bomber survived WW2 against the odds and went on to be an airline pilot with a national airline.

Maybe if you have faced death you learn to enjoy life... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Anyway, hope this post gets us all back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Pirschjaeger
02-21-2007, 07:07 PM
Hi Msalama,

According to what sources?

If I posted the figures and sources it would be about the 5th or 6th time I've done this in GD. The 10 or 11 million that died in the Ukraine did die of famine but the famine was caused by the people's food being stolen by the SU , thus causing forced starvation. Lots of googling will give you all the answers and I don't want to go further off topic.

Hi Viktor,

I see what you mean about not disagreeing.

Also, I agree that many allied WW2 vets didn't feel as cheated as those from other wars. But, there were many, in fact the vast majority, that did feel cheated by the Nazi party. Remember, there were two sides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

My comment was meant to point out that very few know what they are actually getting into when they sign up.

Hi Chris,

I used to work for a Jew in Canada years ago. Every payday was interesting. If I hadn't been twice his size I probably would have never got paid. He had no problems paying me after he saw me throw an 11/22.5 truck tire across the room in anger.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW, Chris, you asked what happened to the bodies. Well, if you google genocide and democide of the 20th century, you'll find that 20,000,000 bodies is only a fraction of the missing bodies from last century. Once again, I don't want to get too far off topic.

Hi Avro,

in my opinion, the 109 is the best looking plane of WW2 but I think it wouldn't be so beautiful when viewed from any position in a WW2 allied bomber.

When I was much younger there were two brothers who were like uncles. They had served in WW2 and flew Lancasters. One had been shot down twice while the other had never seen an enemy plane. I guess both were really lucky.

KG26_Oranje
02-21-2007, 07:53 PM
hard to tell , my country was over run by the germans in 1940 , so i was more in a possition to join resistance side`s or try to get to england from Holland to spain/Switserland.
Or got pick up by the SD to do force labour in germanie.
Or keep my self low profile and hide Romano`s , gay`,s/lesbians , juw , handicapts , and RAF/US crew.

Buht one thing is clear , in the possition i`m now i never join the forces wiht the germans.

Pirschjaeger
02-21-2007, 09:14 PM
Just guessing, but probably the worst case of volunteering for war and then getting something totally unexected is WW1.

At the beginning of WW1, according to what I've read and seen in documentaries, people were more than happy to volunteer for duty. Many had the idea that they'd be home by Christmas.

Could there possibly be anything worse than spending years in muddy trenches, besides gulags?

msalama
02-21-2007, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...will give you all the answers and I don't want to go further off topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ten to eleven million dead altogether, yes. That's common knowledge, but not 10-11 million dead jews as you stated. Or maybe I misunderstood you there?

MB_Avro_UK
02-22-2007, 02:50 PM
Getting back on topic... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The contrast for RAF and US bomber crews between having a relaxed beer in England and facing probable death over Europe the next day/night must have been hard to cope with in my estimation.

When did these guys realise that the chances of surviving a 25 Tour of Operations was nil?

And many crews volunteered for another 25 Tour of Operations having by a miracle survived the first http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

staticline1
02-22-2007, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Getting back on topic... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


When did these guys realise that the chances of surviving a 25 Tour of Operations was nil?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably sometime during the first mission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fighter_966
02-22-2007, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Thanks for your posts but can we keep this thread on topic please?

Reverting to topic.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I met a couple of WW2 RAF Bomber pilots who flew with my father when he was an airline pilot.

As a boy I asked them about what it was like but they didn't discuss anything with me...

My father said that they didn't comment much about the war as it was regarded as not the thing to talk about.It was regarded as 'bragging' to speak of experiences.

But what I did learn was that these guys were under great pressure and did not 'enjoy' their duties.

One such guy was piloting a Wellington bomber over Germany at night. He was not in a formation of bombers and the moon was bright. He and his crew watched an Me 109 stalking them without success for about 10 minutes.

The Wellington gunners could not fire as it would have given their position away.(And the small calibre of their guns would have been next to useless anyway).

It was a long 10 minutes for the Wellington crew..

The 109 was probably been guided by ground control radar vectors??

The 109 did not see them and obviously they survived.

But if the fighter had seen them they would have stood no chance against cannons.

The point I am making is that the pilot of the Wellington bomber survived WW2 against the odds and went on to be an airline pilot with a national airline.

Maybe if you have faced death you learn to enjoy life... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Anyway, hope this post gets us all back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When this happened?? great thread btw

MB_Avro_UK
02-22-2007, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Thanks for your posts but can we keep this thread on topic please?

Reverting to topic.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I met a couple of WW2 RAF Bomber pilots who flew with my father when he was an airline pilot.

As a boy I asked them about what it was like but they didn't discuss anything with me...

My father said that they didn't comment much about the war as it was regarded as not the thing to talk about.It was regarded as 'bragging' to speak of experiences.

But what I did learn was that these guys were under great pressure and did not 'enjoy' their duties.

One such guy was piloting a Wellington bomber over Germany at night. He was not in a formation of bombers and the moon was bright. He and his crew watched an Me 109 stalking them without success for about 10 minutes.

The Wellington gunners could not fire as it would have given their position away.(And the small calibre of their guns would have been next to useless anyway).

It was a long 10 minutes for the Wellington crew..

The 109 was probably been guided by ground control radar vectors??

The 109 did not see them and obviously they survived.

But if the fighter had seen them they would have stood no chance against cannons.

The point I am making is that the pilot of the Wellington bomber survived WW2 against the odds and went on to be an airline pilot with a national airline.

Maybe if you have faced death you learn to enjoy life... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Anyway, hope this post gets us all back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When this happened?? great thread btw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi fighter_966,

If you are speaking about the Wellington incident I'll have to get back to you when I can clarify more.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Pirschjaeger
02-22-2007, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...will give you all the answers and I don't want to go further off topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ten to eleven million dead altogether, yes. That's common knowledge, but not 10-11 million dead jews as you stated. Or maybe I misunderstood you there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Msalama,

I see my mistake. Actually, although the majority were not Jews, it was started by anti-Jewish sentiments.

If you are interested in this stuff, google genocide and democide. If you are interested in anti-Jewism, go to here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm), here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm), and here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm).

And this is quite interesting; Deceit (http://www.religioustolerance.org/holo_apol.htm)

I only posted links because it's Avro's thread. If you want to discuss this further we can start a private topic. Although very sad, it is interesting.

msalama
02-22-2007, 11:28 PM
Thanks for the offer Fritz, but I don't really think this forum is a right setting for such discussions. Are there any history- or politics-related fora that you frequent?

One more thing before I get my coat, though: everyone interested in the Stalinist and Soviet terror should read Anne Applebaum's excellent "Gulag - the history of the Soviet camps". It's the most comprehensive account of the matter I've come across so far, and a brilliantly-written book as well.

OK, I'm out. S!

Pirschjaeger
02-23-2007, 02:43 AM
Hi Msalama,

I looked for other forums and found a few but it seemed the community had a lot of twits in it. Flames were the daily special.

So I decided to take a mod's advice and try making a PT. It works great, no flames, and since then I post much more than I do in here.

fighter_966
02-23-2007, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Thanks for your posts but can we keep this thread on topic please?

Reverting to topic.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I met a couple of WW2 RAF Bomber pilots who flew with my father when he was an airline pilot.

As a boy I asked them about what it was like but they didn't discuss anything with me...

My father said that they didn't comment much about the war as it was regarded as not the thing to talk about.It was regarded as 'bragging' to speak of experiences.

But what I did learn was that these guys were under great pressure and did not 'enjoy' their duties.

One such guy was piloting a Wellington bomber over Germany at night. He was not in a formation of bombers and the moon was bright. He and his crew watched an Me 109 stalking them without success for about 10 minutes.

The Wellington gunners could not fire as it would have given their position away.(And the small calibre of their guns would have been next to useless anyway).

It was a long 10 minutes for the Wellington crew..

The 109 was probably been guided by ground control radar vectors??

The 109 did not see them and obviously they survived.

But if the fighter had seen them they would have stood no chance against cannons.

The point I am making is that the pilot of the Wellington bomber survived WW2 against the odds and went on to be an airline pilot with a national airline.

Maybe if you have faced death you learn to enjoy life... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Anyway, hope this post gets us all back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When this happened?? great thread btw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi fighter_966,

If you are speaking about the Wellington incident I'll have to get back to you when I can clarify more.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans had their Freya system working around 41
so they could steer fighter by radars but Ill wait thanks

hop2002
02-23-2007, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When did these guys realise that the chances of surviving a 25 Tour of Operations was nil? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chance of surviving in Bomber Command never went to nil. The worst point was in the autumn of 1942, when the survival rate for a tour was just over 20%. The situation was somewhat better before this, and improved to about 30% for most of 1943, and shot up dramatically in the second half of 1944.

Overall, 40% of Bomber Command aircrew survived unharmed, another 15% ended up injured or prisoners, 45% died. Of course, this includes men who did 2 or more tours, and men who hadn't completed a tour at the end of war, so it's not possible to work out an average chance of surviving a tour from that.

There's a very good analysis of the statistics of survival for Bomber Command at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germans had their Freya system working around 41
so they could steer fighter by radars but Ill wait thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally, the ground radar could put the fighters close to the bombers, but the final interception had to be made visually. It was common for the fighter to be vectored close to the target, but still not be able to find it.

MB_Avro_UK
02-23-2007, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When did these guys realise that the chances of surviving a 25 Tour of Operations was nil? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chance of surviving in Bomber Command never went to nil. The worst point was in the autumn of 1942, when the survival rate for a tour was just over 20%. The situation was somewhat better before this, and improved to about 30% for most of 1943, and shot up dramatically in the second half of 1944.

Overall, 40% of Bomber Command aircrew survived unharmed, another 15% ended up injured or prisoners, 45% died. Of course, this includes men who did 2 or more tours, and men who hadn't completed a tour at the end of war, so it's not possible to work out an average chance of surviving a tour from that.

There's a very good analysis of the statistics of survival for Bomber Command at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germans had their Freya system working around 41
so they could steer fighter by radars but Ill wait thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally, the ground radar could put the fighters close to the bombers, but the final interception had to be made visually. It was common for the fighter to be vectored close to the target, but still not be able to find it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks hop2002 for the update http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

That would explain why the Me 109 couldn't locate the Wellington.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

fighter_966
02-23-2007, 06:30 PM
Brits also changed the way how bombers flew inside Germany and that made difficult for fighters to find them

peashooter2005
02-24-2007, 09:52 PM
As a teenager enamoured with B-17s I used to wonder why anyone wouldn't want to jump at the chance to fly in one. I recently read a book about an aircraft mechanic who was invited to an inspirational speach by a guy just back from the Pacific in the early part of 1942. He spoke of how much fun it was to blow up flimsy, almost harmless Jap fighters with his twin 50's. The mechanic signed up right away and found himself as a B17 engineer that survived two trips to Schwienfurt and his tour. He came home to train new gunners but thought it more dangerous than combat so he signed up for another tour, that one in the 15th Air Force. He survived that one as well. I'd have been suckered in. High adventure with righteous overtones. Probably wouldn't have gotten very far, if my gaming capability is anything of an indication.

Chris0382
02-25-2007, 06:31 AM
After seeing this dicumentary on the Battle of the Bulge and seeing how horribly the Generals treated the soldiers. When the attact started, Ike was partying in Europe with his new promotion and Montgomery was playing golf. Ide have to say I would not serve. They played the "law of Populations" (put any large population into an extreme environment and you will have survivors but will also knowingly lose a lot). I feel our soldiers were treated the same way as hitler treated his soldiers in the Russian winter. They were inadequatly supplied for winter conditons and we had many amputations. Thankfully we had lots of soldiers so we had survivors to go onto Berlin.

On top of this the Generals did not cut off the bulge and had the division march straight east allowing the Germans to fall back. I think egos between the generals attributed to this error.

I may be wrong but the vets on the documentary were none to happy about the way they were treated as it could have been avoided by listening to the reports of the German build up from citizen refugees coming from Germany. They Generals aslo dispelled the noise of the mechanized units approaching as phongraph records being played by the Germans.

Well if I didnt volunteer fir the 8th, maybe I would end up in the Ardennes forest so maybe this is reason for me to volunteer.

jensenpark
02-25-2007, 09:53 PM
would be better phrased this as:

Would any of you volunteered to fly a bombing mission against Germany in WW2 if you were 18 or 19 years old.

In that context, yea...I remember what I was like all those years ago.
Remember how different a mind set you had back then...

Pirschjaeger
02-26-2007, 05:51 AM
At 18 or 19? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Jenson, at that age we'd believe that we'd easily get laid after our first mission, so in that case, hell yeah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mind set considered. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif