Re: Battle of Britain
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:47 pm
Rodger, not sure what you mean. The RAF *WAS* like the [Brit] Army -- 0fficers' messes and what not. Still is for that matter. What's your point?
Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Actually - that's EXACTLY what they spent the 1920s and 1930s doing - creating a whole new service from scratch that happened to bring along a lot of ttraditions of the Army from which it grew Again, may I recommend John James to you? The social history element of his The Paladins discusses this in great detail.to me trying to look like army regimental mess' of a hundred year old regiment.
Ditto for this - but its worth noting that with the Air reserves, the Auxiliary Air Force etc., the picture had begun to change several years before the war. However - its worth remembering througfh the 1920s and very early 1930s that the RAF was actually a VERY small service! Not as bad as the post-Napoleonic RN and having to wait until someone died before a low-ranking officer could proceed up the rungs of the promotion ladder...50-yr old lieutenants etc....but not far off it!there seemed to be a caste system that only gentlemen flew aircraft,others need not apply, then came the war.
Okay, there's a clear, specific -- and verifiable -- assertion. I'm willing to be swayed by evidence.Rodger Herbst wrote:A large part of the RAF buget was spent on frills instead of necessities such as training, designing aircraft,etc.A lot of money was spent on fancy officers messes and there guest nites ,to me trying to look like army regimental mess' of a hundred year old regiment.