Army Air Corps or US Air Force?????

[ArtKramr]

Which fought better?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Which fought better?

Using the number killed in friendly-fire incidents alone, I'd have
to say the USAF. The AAC killed more allied troops
than the USAF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which fought better?
>

USAF, of course.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:na%Hc.21488$r3.5662@okepread03...
>
> Using the number killed in friendly-fire incidents alone, I'd have
> to say the USAF. The AAC killed more allied troops
> than the USAF.
>

The Air Corps didn't fight, that was the USAAF.

[Jack G]

Which is more important - inhaling or exhaling. Makes as much sense as your
question.

Jack G

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Which fought better?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[D. Strang]

Come on now, he had a rough day with the Mexicans serving him beer
at the golf course tea room, paid for with his monthly welfare check.

"Jack G" > wrote
> Which is more important - inhaling or exhaling. Makes as much sense as your
> question.
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> > Which fought better?

[Tom Swift]

"Jack G" < wrote in message
> Which is more important - inhaling or exhaling. Makes as much sense as
your
> question.
>
> Jack G
>
> "ArtKramr" < wrote in message
> > Which fought better?


Kramer has lost it but still permits his Nurse to post for him.

[B2431]

>From: "Tom Swift"
>Date: 7/11/2004 7:48 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Jack G" < wrote in message
>> Which is more important - inhaling or exhaling. Makes as much sense as
>your
>> question.
>>
>> Jack G
>>
>> "ArtKramr" < wrote in message
>> > Which fought better?
>
>
>Kramer has lost it but still permits his Nurse to post for him.

It is possible to debate without personal attacks.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[tscottme]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

>
> It is possible to debate without personal attacks.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, I saw it happen once in 1998. So it is technically possible. ;-)

--
Scott

"The enemy is radical Islam and state-sponsored terrorism; the obstacles to
success are the French and American liberals.." - Joseph A. Klein

[B2431]

>From: "tscottme"
>Date: 7/12/2004 6:03 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> It is possible to debate without personal attacks.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Yes, I saw it happen once in 1998. So it is technically possible. ;-)
>
>--
>Scott
>

It did? Can you provide a cite, witnesses or testimony under oath?

(please note liberal use of sarcasm)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired