To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.adventurersOpen lugnet.adventurers in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Adventurers / 1157
     
   
Subject: 
Re: Would a general/pilot in WW1............
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.adventurers
Date: 
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:37:15 GMT
Viewed: 
1644 times
  

  The issue of uniforms at all for WWI pilots is also thorny;
  it took a little while for real uniform standards to be created.
  As many air auxiliaries were simply extensions of the armies
  below at first (even the naval squadrons--a real mess, to be
  sure), they often looked much the same, except with less
  mud, more black soot, and a significantly longer service life.

Nope.  The average pilots service life was _less_ than the average grunt.  2nd
Lt (ground) had lowest life expectancy, I believe around 17 DAYS.  But, pilots
often died in the first 5 MIN of combat.  The good pilots lasted much
longer...but, they would separate the wheat from the chaff very fast.

(its just that pilots were not likely to see as much combat as a ground
pounder...moral of the story, go navy, because you stood a far better chance
of surviving!)



James

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Would a general/pilot in WW1............
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.adventurers
Date: 
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:08:41 GMT
Viewed: 
1649 times
  

In lugnet.adventurers, James Powell writes:

  The issue of uniforms at all for WWI pilots is also thorny;
  it took a little while for real uniform standards to be created.
  As many air auxiliaries were simply extensions of the armies
  below at first (even the naval squadrons--a real mess, to be
  sure), they often looked much the same, except with less
  mud, more black soot, and a significantly longer service life.

Nope.  The average pilots service life was _less_ than the average grunt.  2nd
Lt (ground) had lowest life expectancy, I believe around 17 DAYS.  But, pilots
often died in the first 5 MIN of combat.  The good pilots lasted much
longer...but, they would separate the wheat from the chaff very fast.

(its just that pilots were not likely to see as much combat as a ground
pounder...moral of the story, go navy, because you stood a far better chance
of surviving!)

   I was actually including the non-combat service life with it,
   so in fact you may be agreeing with me here.  ;)  It also does
   shift from year to year, month to month, as aerial combat is
   refined and made more lethal and exhaustion sets in on the
   ground.

   On the other hand, a pilot was more likely to be killed
   in a *non*-combat situation than a grunt...*crunch*

   best

   LFB

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Would a general/pilot in WW1............
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:38:39 GMT
Viewed: 
238 times
  

  On the other hand, a pilot was more likely to be killed
  in a *non*-combat situation than a grunt...*crunch*

  best

  LFB
Well, that's what you get when you send someone into the air with a machine
that is of dubious quality at best, and with less than 10 hrs of flying time!

(boy, lives were cheap then!)

James

 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR