Talk:Alberto A. Nido/Archive 1

Proper terminology

I don’t know much about General Nido himself, but shouldn’t RCAF/RAF ranks and jargon be used when referring to Gen. Nido’s service in those organizations?

So… he would have been commissioned in the RCAF as a ‘Pilot Officer’. And in November 1943 he would have been a ‘Flight Lieutenant’. Similarly, it would have been ‘Group Captain’ T S Moorman, rather than ‘Colonel’.

Spitfire pilots flew ‘ops’, and not ‘combat missions’. And it would have been 610 Squadron, and not ‘610th’. Markcymru (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I agree. However, was T S Moorman as USAAF officer? In which case he would have been a colonel. Greenshed (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the 'control towers' website (http://www.controltowers.co.uk/W-Z/Zeals.htm), Zeals was being used by the Americans in November 1943, so you're probably correct about Moorman.Markcymru (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Great observations, I believe that being a cerified pilot who piloted bomber planes the proper rank was Flying Officer instead of 2nd. Lt., the newspaper article was wrong in the sense that it posted the "American" equivalent of the rank instead of the proper RCAF one. In regard to the comments on the "Spitfire", you are absolutely right and the proper fixes have been made. I checked the 9th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (Prov)- (4 January 1944-30 May 1945)"; Microfilmed records and it has T S Moorman as a Colonel, however it doesn't state if Moorman was a USAAF officer, but I also agree that seems to the case. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)