On 10 Jul 2003 23:00:50 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 7/10/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
that you don't consider them to be dangerous?
I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
bikes
combat vehlcles.

The Japanese used bicycles to transport troops and did so very, very
effectively in 1942. If you can manoeuvre your force faster than the
enemy, who cares _how_ you do it?

And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)

I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.

As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.

If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
argue with that definition.


How do you feel about latrine orderlies?

They no longer exist as a specialty (as if they ever did), nor do
those mess stewards you mentioned earlier (except maybe in the Navy,
and then they are usually sitting on the same *combat* ship as the
rest of the crew...). BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.

Brooks


Arthur Kramer

The US Navy did away with the Steward rate about 20 years ago.

Al Minyard