- Thread starter
-
- #201
So in your opinion a fighter pilot isn't ultimately trying to destroy an aircraft completely?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So in your opinion a fighter pilot isn't ultimately trying to destroy an aircraft completely?No, they are not. They are both victories.
We already unanimously agreed that I won, and I have a a stars and stripes on my 1/48 spitfire to prove it, another 250 of them and I will be a 1/48 scale message board ace, without even getting mad or nuffink.Wrong! I know you are!
So in your opinion a fighter pilot isn't ultimately trying to destroy an aircraft completely?
People are going around in circles and asking me the same thing over and over and are accusing me of things I never did and are doing it in a confrontational manner.
I'm not leaving this forum, but now I understand why people do
That's fine and I said so. I don't count it as a victory because the damaged aircraft is still there and flying the next day.Of course he is, but he cannot guarantee that final outcome. Therefore when two pilots engage in combat and one shoots down the other, he gets a kill, because it was a victory.
That's fine and I said so. I don't count it as a victory because the damaged aircraft is still there and flying the next day.
I only count aircraft that were destroyed.
Fair enough. My definition is strict after all.Well, good thing you are not in charge of actually reviewing the kills by the pilots as they reported them in 1944.
When you have 5 seconds of firing time on your drum fed cannon or 12 seconds on your MGs there is always a decision to make.So in your opinion a fighter pilot isn't ultimately trying to destroy an aircraft completely?
Fair enough. My definition is strict after all.
You are right.
I am right.
We just have different opinions
Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree
I'm just going to make a small correction. We know definitely if it was repaired or not. It's not could have been or could not have been. The reports clearly say if it's repaired or scrapped. Other than that it's good.My only disagreement here is that most of us have an opinion that coincides with the actual methods that the air forces themselves used for claiming. To say that a pilot's victory in combat is not valid because an aircraft could have been repaired is pretty damn insulting to that pilot. Especially when its made 80+ years later in the safety of a living room or office. And that's my opinion.
My only disagreement here is that most of us have an opinion that coincides with the actual methods that the air forces themselves used for claiming. To say that a pilot's victory in combat is not valid because an aircraft could have been repaired is pretty damn insulting to that pilot. Especially when its made 80+ years later in the safety of a living room or office. And that's my opinion.
Then you can make a guess as a pilot as to whether or not it's going to be repaired.
Lipfert and Barkhorn were better at guessing if their victims would be written off.
I'm just going to make a small correction. We know definitely if it was repaired or not. It's not could have been or could not have been. The reports clearly say if it's repaired or scrapped. Other than that it's good.
So we're cool now? All forgiven and no hard feelings?
So if an MMA fighter forces an opponent to give up its not a victory?
He still hasn't answered my question about Falaise above, which is in a similar vein.
Here's one. If a pilot shoots down an enemy aircraft over his own territory, and later his forces repair it and fly it again. Is it a victory? It was repaired. It was not destroyed. It flew again…