Battle of Britain

[PaulJ]

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?

[Rodger Herbst]

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.

[phylo_roadking]

to me trying to look like army regimental mess' of a hundred year old regiment.

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.

there seemed to be a caste system that only gentlemen flew aircraft,others need not apply, then came the war.

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!

[PaulJ]

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.

Okay, there's a clear, specific -- and verifiable -- assertion. I'm willing to be swayed by evidence.

So what was the actual breakdown of RAF budget expenditure in the 1920s and 1930s?

Cheers,