#1 Piston Fighter was British

In article ink.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
9th on that morning.

I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I never read any books on the subject.


It shows.

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 6/30/03 8:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I never read any books on the subject.


It shows.


I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
I never read any books on the subject.
It shows.
I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..

I suggest you read a few more books on the whole subject, to balance your
one eyed view.
Looking out from the nose of a medium bomber was not "what it was all
about".

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Sunny"
Date: 6/30/03 11:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
I never read any books on the subject.
It shows.
I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..

I suggest you read a few more books on the whole subject, to balance your
one eyed view.
Looking out from the nose of a medium bomber was not "what it was all
about".


It was fo rme.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..


If one cannot learn about the war by reading about it, then there's no point
in your writing about it.

ArtKramr wrote:


I never read any books on the subject.


It shows.

I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..

Arthur Kramer


Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.

Dave

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: Dave Holford
Date: 7/1/03 5:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:



ArtKramr wrote:


I never read any books on the subject.


It shows.

I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..

Arthur Kramer


Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.

Dave


Exactly my point. it is not for the faint of heart.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Dave Holford wrote:



ArtKramr wrote:


I never read any books on the subject.


It shows.

I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..

Arthur Kramer


Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.

Dave

The boys do seem to have a valid point here Art...I think you
might do well to retract that view or at least modify it
slightly. Don't worry, you won't be the first poster who's been a
bit wrong on this ng.
--

-Gord.

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:19:23 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

Even the Spitfire XVI was powered by the American-built
Merlin.

Yes, but that was the exception. AFAIK most of Packard's
production for the RAF was single-stage Merlins for bombers.

And that was in September/October 1944, on one production line at the
Castle Bromwich factory at a time when the British were still
producing Mk IXs and Griffon-engined Mk XIVs. The Packard-Merlins in
Lancaster B.IIIs and Kittyhawk IIs were much more significant in terms
of their impact on British operational policy.

Gavin,
I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
of Mosquito were more significant. I'm not trying to cut down the
Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
based airframes weren't the best option available. As a point of
information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
'42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
order. Could you please shed some light on this?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster