moosemaster
Hi.
OK I will give up on this.
As I said, I thought we were talking on cross purposes. I still say that, as however you like to put things (bearing in mind I did say the article was only one of the info sources) the RAF could still not have done it. I am not stuck in in a single service ideology here and so cannot disregard things just because they are not AT, as without all the pieces the job does not get done. I have re read my posts, and still can not find any reference to me ever saying the RAF do not care about the soldiers.
The cross purpose of our interpretations is summed up well by your comment:
The mail topic can easily be sorted by the acquisition of more AT assets.
I suppose from a NON front line RAF AT only point of view that may seem true, but I would feel that no matter how many AT assets you had, they would not get the mail to the front line by themselves. That is where the whole thing including soft skin/armoured vehicles, helicopters, accommodation, infrastructure, personnel/support etc fit into this*
*I am thinking mail as a whole (after the tat reference), not just to the easy to reach folks who are based near a runway, and with shops and burger joints to visit.
I only asked my original question, after many times getting totally brassed off at how much mail folks got whom were based/stationed at airfields (or other large places). How easy it was for them (easy, as in less hard), considering they had fresh water, electricity, and plentiful supplies. And how hard it was for others who were further to the front, and for whom boil in the bags, cold water (from your bottle) and sleeping on the floor were the norm. Although my times were more related to the cold war era, I must admit that receiving 'tat' was a real morale booster in these places.
I think I'd better stop too now.