I rather think it has become time to rewite the Shakespeare line which goes roughly “…first kill all …..”. 🙂

It has long been my opinion that H&S people are usually those who have failed at using revolving doors. Out here (Australia) in recent time I have noticed that anytime an industrial accident happens, and that includes the military – three separate Government appointed bodies investigate it. Heaven only knows what would happen if they reached three separate and differing conclusions as to cause. :rolleyes:

Frankly the issue about instrument dials is close to being one of the silliest pieces of codswallop ever inflicted on the public by the nanny state. I wonder if it would be possible for a review board, staffed by non-public servants who have to actually adhere to budgetary and time restraints, to be set up as the first place bright ideas such as the one that led to this are discussed on a strict time limit basis. No firm decision in three seconds – rejected, next. 😡

But on the plus side the public service does serve as a safe repository for 90% of society’s nincompoops – unfortunately someone occasionally forgets to lock them in and they escape. Perhaps they could be neutered so at least their genes will not contaminate the next generation 😀

When I was at university I noticed that the public service soaked up all the students who knew their pass mark would be low. The unfortunate result of this has been what an American writer termed “the revenge of the C pass student”. 😉

Did Milch speak English? That’s all.

Well a quick search of the various histories indicate that he visted Britain before the war on several occasions and also dined with Churchill on one occasion. His job before he became part of the Luftwaffe would probably have necessitated some knowledge of English. However the reference here – http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cbo-afa/cbo05.htm – was translated from German so perhaps he spoke English but was not so adept at written English.

I’m puzzled. So… was/is there an RAF equivalent of the USAF TO publications which shows the specific pattern to be applied to each type of aircraft? Would RAF painters stick to it religiously? And if not, would you expect all the aircraft at the same unit at the same time to be painted the same way?

bestest,
M.

Don’t know a number but all camo schemes followed standardised patterns for each aircraft type. They are a balance of light and dark tones to break up an aircraft’s shape in a scientifically determined way.

All British post-war camouflaged aircraft had schemes based on specific patterns for mission type. If you look at the patterns for the V-bombers you will see that despite shape differences the same pattern is discernible in each. It is the same for fighters as well.

In WW2 all aircraft had standardised patterns for the tonal differences, and there was little leeway for variation in this. At the beginning of the war the AM authorised four schemes – A, B, C and D. The A and B were mirror images of each other as were the C and D. As wartime production became more urgent three were dropped but the one that remained was standard in its tonal pattern for all aircraft.

This was taken a step further in biplanes where shadow shading was used which is a scheme where colours that are in the shadow of an another surface were painted in lighter tones of the standard colours e.g. Dark Earth/Light Earth etc.

Some aircraft may differ in exact detail but the overall tonal patterns are the same. Camouflage was too important to be left to impressionistic renderings by aircraft painters at the depots or the factories.

Would like to, but can’t. As a significant part of Bomber Command came from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, et al, (all part of the Empire and Commonwealth) plus from Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Holland, Ireland and more, the Parliamentary requirement of British citizenship for the pollsters is another insult to those non-Britons who served in Bomber Command.

Damned right 😡

KIt seems keeping your trap shut when a Beaufighter passes could avoid a follow-up attack by a Kotodama.

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a collector of Japanese swords and is an allround Japanophile. He says that there is no profanity in the sense that we Westerners have.

So I would say that you are on the right track track when you say that disrespect or whatever would be expressed in the deliberate usage of innapropriate grammatical constructs.

He is going to consult with some others on the matter and I will keep you posted.

And part of my point is the Japanese attitude to swearing means that’s extremely unlikely. As I understand it (correction welcome) Japanese culture simply can’t see the point to bad language. It’s like asking what’s the taste of purple…

Well you’ve got me there – as I don’t speak Japanese I must admit to complete ignorance about what their swearing would sound like in comparison with normal discourse. Perhaps some form of polite expletive that would translate as “By the Emperor’s under pants!!!” 😀

However what little I do understand about Japanese military culture is that they had inordinate respect for military duty and courage, which explained their awful treatment of prisoners and their belief that ritual beheading was an honourable death.

Both things are somewhat alien to our present values, however, we must remember that as late as the 18th Century in Britain the execution by hanging of Lord Ferrars for murdering his agent was regarded as a dishonourable death. Some, at the time, argued that as a nobleman he should have been beheaded.

It will be interesting if someone does come up with the roots of “Whispering Death” and if they show that it was actually bestowed by the Japanese. One must admit that bestowing the name would fit within the philosophy of their military culture.

Of course as you rightly point out our Western tradition tends towards belittling or scatological nicknames for our opponents.

Which raises another question –

If you’re a German soldier standing in France and you get hit on the head by a single falling tin leg, would that make you hopping mad?

😀

You could also postulate that hitting Tokyo and wiping out the government, Emperor and (presumably) the armed forces top brass might make it a little difficult to find anybody with the authority to sign a surrender / cease fire.

Moggy

If I might add to that.

It was US and Allied policy to avoid bombing the Imperial Palace and its grounds. This was done because it was felt that killing the Emperor and the Royal Family who were considered to be gods by the Japanese people would only increase the fanaticism displayed by Japanese troops.

This also was why in the post-war period the Emperor was protected from war crimes charges even though the evidence is quite clear that he was not opposed to the war. MacArthur handled the task of placating the defeated Japanese with exemplary skill. Any perceived attack directly on the Emperor would only have made things worse.

A weapon like the atom bomb was far too indiscrimatory in its effects to risk on Tokyo where the Imperial Palace was located, even though there was nothing much left to bomb anyway.

Hiroshima was picked simply because until then it had not been targeted – a little like the way Dresden was selected.

The strategic bombing policy was operated on a check list system – scratch one city, move to next and so on.