On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:35:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
.. .

Seems a bit odd to call it "combat" when the V-1 can't shoot back, or
even maneuver.


Well, then, an RAF bomber shot down by an unseen night fighter would be a
non-combat loss as well.

Well, the difference is that the bomber has the potential to detect
the enemy night fighter and fight back, the V-1 doesn't. It just flies
along until it quits or is shot down. BTW weren't a number of V-1s
destroyed by tipping them over and destroying the gyroscopes
effectiveness.
The pilots who destroyed the V-1s did an outstanding job and deserve
all our respect. Thay had a job to do and they did it, and very
effectively. And I'm sure they wouyld rather have been downing a
manned fighter or bomber. My hat is off to them. But, it's just not
the same as combat with something that can shoot back at you.

Walt



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----