# "War-era bomber to be part of new RCAF flying badges"



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2017)

As much as I'm not a "new buttons & bows" fan, this seemed like an interesting link to the past ...


> *War-era bomber to be part of new RCAF flying badges*
> News Article / July 12, 2017
> By Joanna Calder
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (14 Jul 2017)

See also,

LW682
https://www.google.ca/search?q=LW682&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8LdoWfSKB--fXsmwocgC&gws_rd=ssl

Pilot Officer Joseph Eduard Jean-Guy Arbour (mid-under gunner)

"It has been a matter of debate ever since whether the Canadian 6 Group, which alone fitted several ventral turrets to many of their Lancasters ( and Halifaxes - mm ) to cover the blind spot, were justified in sacrificing speed and adding weight to do so."
Bomber Command by Sir Max Hastings

Also, because LW682 had a mid-under gunner, it required the eighth crew member. 
An eight man crew ( mid-under gunner) was extremely rare in Bomber Command. It was not until the end of the war that Bomber Command learned of the existence of Schrage Muzik. The attacks were almost invariably lethal.

This was to protect from "Schrage Musik" attacks, which LW682 seems to have been a victim of.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=LW682&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8LdoWfSKB--fXsmwocgC&gws_rd=ssl#q=schrage+musik&spf=1500036116543

During the second half of the war, RAF Bomber Command crews reported seeing many 'scarecrow shells' over Germany, AA shells where said to simulate the sight of an exploding four-engined bomber and designed to damage morale. Sadly, in many cases these were actual 'kills' by Luftwaffe nightfighters many using twin 20mm cannon installed at acute angle behind the pilot, and designed to fire upwards into the belly of the bomber. In was not for many months that evidence of these deadly attacks was accepted.

Initially, both the Halifax and Lancaster were designed with under-fuselage gun-mountings, but these were removed due to sighting problems. Some Lancasters were equipped in the field late in the war with a single, .5 calibre Browning operated in a simple mounting aft of the bombdoors, and manned by an extra crewman. It was almost criminal to allow so many casualties from Shrage Musik attacks.

A myth developed among RAF Bomber Command crews that "scarecrow shells" were encountered over Germany. The phenomenon was thought to be "AA shells simulating an exploding four-engined bomber and designed to damage morale. In many cases these were actual 'kills' by Luftwaffe night fighters... It was not for many months that evidence of these deadly attacks was accepted."
 https://h2g2.com/entry/A581753


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2017)

This is actually a nice addition to the new metal wings that are coming out later this year.

ACSO is air combat systems _officer_ vice operator.  

Loadmaster is a specialty vice a trade (they are Traffic Techs by trade) so they are actually flight crew vice aircrew IAW the applic regulations.   Not very impressive for the RCAF to list stuff like this in the news and not even pick up on its own errors.  

If we are truly going to reach back in time only pilots would wear full wings as well; that is the way it was "back in the day.  







Also, is there even TacHel Obs anymore? And why wasn't mission specialist included ???


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2017)

Tac Hel Observers ceased when we lost the Kiowa, and were Army anyway, so would wear bright gold vice gloomy grey wings (there may be a couple still serving), and we've not had Mission Specialists for many years either.


----------



## rotrhed (16 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Tac Hel Observers ceased when we lost the Kiowa, and were Army anyway, so would wear bright gold vice gloomy grey wings (there may be a couple still serving), and we've not had Mission Specialists for many years either.



Once upon a time, the Army wore "gloomy grey" as well, so resurrected Observer wings in the 'new' colour wouldn't be a stretch. Who knows, maybe the Army para crowd will want to go back to the future as well!


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2017)

As we've not run an Observer course in over two decades, are not likely to ever again, and the last of the few ex-Observers who may be still in won't be around for more than a couple of years, it's a waste anyway.

And, if we're going to go full pre-1968, Tac Hel would be back in the Army completely - which makes operational sense as well.


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If we are truly going to reach back in time only pilots would wear full wings as well; that is the way it was "back in the day.



I'd agree with that, if for nothing else than we won't get mistaken for the "bus drivers" when giving static tours at airshows  >

*I kid, I kid...99% of the public won't notice the 1-wing/2-wing difference anyway*


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> As we've not run an Observer course in over two decades, are not likely to ever again, and the last of the few ex-Observers who may be still in won't be around for more than a couple of years, it's a waste anyway.



Thought so...wondering why they are still making the badges?



> And, if we're going to go full pre-1968, Tac Hel would be back in the Army completely - which makes operational sense as well.



I've highlighted the biggest reason it won't happen in yellow text.   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd agree with that, if for nothing else than we won't get mistaken for the "bus drivers" when giving static tours at airshows  >
> 
> *I kid, I kid...99% of the public won't notice the 1-wing/2-wing difference anyway*



We could argue the new *non pilot* half wings would only cost half as much!! ( false, they'd probably be a specialty item that cost 3 times as much)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> we've not had Mission Specialists for many years either.



Oh...I thought all door gunners were Mission Specialists.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2017)

No. They were trained as door gunners only. Mission Specialists were supposed to be, basically, back-seat Observers - running the second and larger FLIR monitor in the back because Canadian Pilots could not do that, for some reason, even though US, British, and other Pilots could - minus navigation, FAC/Air OP, and air-to-ground radio functions (we always had four nets on the go in the Kiowa: Flight/Section primary interplane or FAC net on UHF, Squadron VHF-AM Common or ATC, Supported Unit on VHF-FM, and Section Lead on the Arty net on the second VHF-FM Number 2 on the Squadron VHF-FM net; the Observers handled the two VHF-FM radios). Granted, the original instrument-panel FLIR screen was pretty crappy, and I am not absolutely sure if we are using the same one or if it was replaced when MX-15 replaced our original FLIR, but I would expect that the monitor was replaced along with the ball. The main need for "Mission Specialists", from what I saw, was to maintain an Army presence in our Squadrons, and to run ranges. There were attempts to establish courses, but I do not know if the same one was ever run twice. The FE is mainly focussed on his door-gunner role on the right side when the machine is armed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2017)

I had no idea...thanks for the info!


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thought so...wondering why they are still making the badges?



I doubt that any have been made for decades - there's probably a metric buttload of the original ones in the supply system (probably the only thing in there that isn't out-of-stock or almost out-of-stock).

Nobody at the buttons-and-bows decision-making level likely has a clue about the Observer situation. I'll see our new Wing CWO about it.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've highlighted the biggest reason it won't happen in yellow text.   ;D



That and we represent numbers and therefore political power and money that can be put to other use, even though the a** f**ce has almost no idea of what we do, how we do it, and why, and little interest in us.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I had no idea...thanks for the info!



My pleasure.

It was a really dumb crew concept.

The driver was the crew commander, but the non-crew commander (Observer) had the maps, the binoculars, the primary radios and was therefore best equipped to make decisions yet could not, but only make suggestions. That doubled the cockpit communications, as he had to brief multiple options and paint a verbal picture to the driver, who was largely busy dodging wires, trees, and cows while trying to pick low ground and avoid stumbling into the enemy and figure out where the fork Number 2 buggered off to _this_ time and listen to five conversations while banking left and right at thirty degrees a couple of feet above the ground at 120 km/hr plus, deciding which option to take, and briefing the Observer accordingly.

It's so much quicker and simpler to say "go right at the treeline and follow the obvious low ground to the next village" rather than "if you go left at the treeline you'll see this, and if you go right at the treeline you'll see this", and a bunch of other supporting information (direction and distance to lead car, last enemy contact, major landmarks or hazards, and anything else of interest/concern).

Thou hast not known true confusion and chaos until thou hast occupied a front seat in a Kiowa on Fallex.

Most Observers were truly outstanding NCOs, most ended up as CWOs in key appointments, and a few took Commissions, and deservedly so.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2017)

Mind if I ask where this crew concept was brought into creation and given life??


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2017)

When we got the Kiowa, which was after unification, and the a** f**ce mentality began to take hold.

All Pilots had to be Officers, and it was decided (by whom, exactly, I have no idea and that is probably lost to history) that Observers would be Artillery and Armoured Sergeants and Warrant Officers in an advisory role, probably because the Army did not want to waste Officers that way.

It would have made much more sense to follow the practice of other major Commonwealth countries, with the bulk of Pilots being NCOs with Officers only in traditional Officer roles such as Regimental, Squadron, Flight Commanders, and Ops Officers, etcetera.

I also like US Army practice, where Unit Maintenance Officers are Pilots rather than AERE-equivalents. That tends to prevent the operational dog being wagged by the maintenance union tail.

The British Army Air Corps derives from the Glider Pilot Regiment and Royal Artillery Air Observation Post Squadrons of the Second World War. The original pre-1968 Canadian Army Pilots (Second World War RCA Auster AOP, later RCA L19 AOP, Armoured Corps CH112 Nomad, and Service Corps CH113 Voyageur) wore AAC wings.

If we could dig up the remains of a Horsa, Hamilcar, Hadrian, or Auster somewhere and have wings hand-carved from the wooden structure...

There - almost back on topic.


----------



## dimsum (17 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I also like US Army practice, where Unit Maintenance Officers are Pilots rather than AERE-equivalents. That tends to prevent the operational dog being wagged by the maintenance union tail.



Not being facetious, but how would a Pilot Unit Maintenance Officer not get "wagged by the union tail", especially since s/he would have little (or no) experience in the maintenance side of things and would lean even more on the WO/MWO?  I admit I don't know a lot of the maintenance side of the house, but wouldn't an AERE have more experience with maintenance?

Would the UMO also keep flying quals during the posting or would it be like a Wing Ops job?

The idea of NCO Pilots is a good one though.

...and back off-topic  >


----------

