Escort Fighter Performance Comparison

[EwenS]

The MK VIIIs went to NA/Italy and the Far east because that is where they needed the extra range.

Well that statement is open to question, at least so far as North Africa/Italy is concerned.

Both the Mk.VIII and IX turned up in the Med around the same time in early 1943. They were used alongside each other there until the end of the war. And sometimes, particularly in 1943 and early 1944 in the same squadrons simultaneously.

IIRC the first Mk.VIII deployed to the Far East (India/Burma) was a rush job and belonged to 81 squadron. It was withdrawn from Italy to Egypt in Nov 1943, re-equipped with brand new Mk.VIII straight from the MU and flown from Cairo to Calcutta arriving at the beginning of Dec.

The first Mk.VIII had arrived in Australia in Oct 1943.

 

[wuzak]

A Range is Not a Combat Radius. The Internal fuel remaining after droping external tanks, fighting for 20 minutes - then cruising at optimum (clean) from that Radius point back to base with ~ 30gal for loiter - controls your planning 'maximum'.

For comparison, the CR of a Mustang I with 170gal internal fuel - with same combat burn off and loiter asumptions, no external tanks possible, was about 120 mi. But the Range (max) for Ferry conditions was ~ 1000 miles.

Rough rule of calc for Merlin 60 series is 5mi/gal (as good as cleaner - less drag- Mustang) = 60 gallons for 300 miles at 300mph, plus 30 gal for loiter = 90 gallons internal required to make it back to base. You can complicate all you wish to account for decent leg, but trivial differences in total internal fuel required.

Well, they did go to 120-123 gallons when they had the chance, but that was one factory while an other factory stayed with 85 and 96 gallon set up.

Perhaps when comparing British and American aircraft fuel volumes should be listed in LITRES?

The 170 US gallons internal fuel is 141 UK gallons, 17% more than the 120 UK gallons in the Spitfire.

 

[Warbirdnutball]

The P51 was the quintessential escort fighter but it really didn't come into it's own until 1944, the Spitfire, if the MkIII with two stage Merlin was developed could have escorted bombers out to the Ruhr from the end of the BoB, from the 60 series onwards models, (MkVIII, IX) could have been handy out to around 400 Miles radius from 1942 but it was really maxed out at around 500-550 miles. The P47 was in my opinion too much of a fuel pig to be seriously considered, it could carry lots of fuel but it wasn't efficient by any means and the N/M series got their range by simply carry vast amounts of it, a fantastic fighter if used to it's advantages, the P38 had serious range but it's performance was not up to par until the L series which made it a later war aircraft but once it's issue's were sorted it was a top class fighter, the A6M compromised everything for range, it's slow speed and nil protection made it useful only in the Pacific against weaker opponents and I personally do not like the Zero at all, it's without doubt the most overrated aircraft of the war for me and I would not want to fight in it. I don't think anything else fits the bill.

If you really feel that way about the P-47 them maybe you should read about Hub Zemke and his wolfpack and the tactics they developed for range and tactics. Their scores were so high because of it. Now I will admit that the 47 was a had hog. That being said, at altitude where their super charger kicked in they performed awesomely. Gave the mustytang a run for it's money.

 

[PAT303]

If you really feel that way about the P-47 them maybe you should read about Hub Zemke and his wolfpack and the tactics they developed for range and tactics. Their scores were so high because of it. Now I will admit that the 47 was a had hog. That being said, at altitude where their super charger kicked in they performed awesomely. Gave the mustytang a run for it's money.

Funny what happens when you give a plane more endurance isn't it.

 

[Milosh]

If you really feel that way about the P-47 them maybe you should read about Hub Zemke and his wolfpack and the tactics they developed for range and tactics. Their scores were so high because of it. Now I will admit that the 47 was a had hog. That being said, at altitude where their super charger kicked in they performed awesomely. Gave the mustytang a run for it's money.

Do you mean turbocharger?

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps when comparing British and American aircraft fuel volumes should be listed in LITRES?

The 170 US gallons internal fuel is 141 UK gallons, 17% more than the 120 UK gallons in the Spitfire.

The idea of liters is both good and bad.

Yes everything should be the same, bad is that we already making typos and rounding off errors.
Since all the original documents/manuals were in gallons (and sometimes don't agree) going to liters may just add errors.

Most sources say the Merlin Mustang held 180 US gallons in the wing tanks, some say 184 (?). In manuals that give capacity in both US and Imp they say 180 and 150 respectively.

perhaps the 170 is a typo. perhaps it is the amount of fuel that the range chart says is available after start-up, warm up and take off? There are charts that do say that.
However then you have to take 10 gallons (US) away from the Spitfire so it is pretty much a wash.

And some manuals/data sheets have typos on them.

 

[Shortround6]

Both the Mk.VIII and IX turned up in the Med around the same time in early 1943. They were used alongside each other there until the end of the war. And sometimes, particularly in 1943 and early 1944 in the same squadrons simultaneously.

Unfortunately planned allocations and actual use often didn't line up. Mainly because planned allocations wee often done months before the planes actual saw action in theater.

P-38s were pulled from operations in Europe (England) in Oct of 1942 for operation Torch and some of them didn't get to NA until Dec.

When did the Med get opened to shipping in 1943?

Which Type of Spitfire did they think they were going to need for the end of the NA campaign and the invasion of Sicily and Italy?

The Italian campaign bogged down and they often didn't make very fast advances making the air war somewhat static and perhaps they weren't getting the supplies of aircraft that they wanted and had to make do with substitutes?

 

[EwenS]

When did the Med get opened to shipping in 1943?

The first through convoy from Gibraltar to Alexandia, GTX1, sailed on 24 May 1943 and arrived 4 June. The first through return convoy, XTG1, sailed from Alexandria on 3rd June and arrived at Gib on 17th June. The Axis surrender in NA occurred on 13 May. But that is not relevant to the matter in hand.

The RAF, having been assembling Spitfires & Hurricanes at Gibraltar before and after Operation Torch, set up a number of MU in North Africa to assemble aircraft that arrived in crates from Britain. 145 MU was formed at Casablanca in March 1943 specifically to handle Hurricanes and Spitfires. It continued in that role and location until March 1945. There is a series of photos of their work on the IWM website dating to the last quarter of 1943, one of which is below.

ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, 1939-1943.

Civilian workers running the wing of a Supermarine Spitfire Mark VIII out of its crate prior to assembly of the aircraft (JF672, seen in the foreground) by No.145 Maintenance Unit at Cazès Airport, Casablanca, Morocco. Most of the civilians employed at 145 MU were Spanish refugees who fled to...

www.iwm.org.uk

The earliest Mk.IX in the Med were being assembled at Gib in Feb 1943 before going to join 92 and 145 squadrons alongside the Mk.V. This is a Mk.IX from the Polish Combat (sometimes referred to as the Fighting) Team attached to 145 squadron in North Africa between March and June 1943. Mk.VIII were a few months behind that it arriving in theatre with the first going to 601 in June alongside Mk.V.

The front line in Italy didn't bog down until the winter weather really set in and the Allies ran into the German defences of the Winter Line. That wasn't until the end of 1943. By then around 750 Mk.VIII had been produced and yet squadrons were still not fully re-equipped from the Mk.V and some were still flying a mix of VIII/IX.

If you want a better reason for the MK.VIII being sent to the Middle & Far East, take a look at the air filters rather than the fuel tanks. The Mk.VIII was fitted with the streamlined Vokes Aero-Vee from the outset. The Mk.IX only gained it part way through the production run.

I'm not sure what your point about the P-38s is. Of course they had to be pulled from operations in Britain before going to North Africa. They had to pack up all their kit get it on board ship for transportation to Africa then reverse the process when they got their. So 14th FG:-

Last operation in Britain was 21st Oct 1942.
Ground echelon left Britain on 30th Oct from Liverpool. It arrived at Oran on 10th Nov.
Air echelon moved to Portreath in Cornwall on 6th Nov to prepare for the flight to North Africa. They flew out between 10th & 14th Nov. Followed by further moves to reach their operational base and catch up with the ground echelon.

The 1st FG took more than two weeks after arriving in Africa before flying its first mission on 29 Nov.

The 82nd FG was the last of the initial P-38 Groups to arrive in Britain in Sept/Oct 1942 and did not fly operationally as it was sent for additional training in Northern Ireland. It was therefore the last to leave for North Africa in Dec 1942, flying its first missions between Xmas and New Year.

 

[drgondog]

Duplicate

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not sure what your point about the P-38s is.

Just pointing out that it took time to actually plan deployments and circumstances on the ground could change between plans being made and combat starting.
Likewise trying to stop things in midstream could take a bit of doing.

Aircraft sent in crates to North Africa need shipping space allocated and transport to and from the ships. And it was not just the aircraft themselves but the logistics train that went with them.

Sometimes plans overlapped and sometimes plans needed be modified but some people (not you) think that supplies, aircraft and weapons can be shifted about with just a few days notice with changes of thousands of miles in destinations.

I do thank you for providing the information for both the Spitfires and the P-38s.

In late 1942 were do the British plan to send the MK VIII Spitfires? They won't be ready for a number of months but plans have to start being made.

 

[Warbirdnutball]

Do you mean turbocharger?

Yes. Sorry. Of all the things I've lost...... Lol.

 

[Mike Williams]

The earliest Mk.IX in the Med were being assembled at Gib in Feb 1943 before going to join 92 and 145 squadrons alongside the Mk.V. This is a Mk.IX from the Polish Combat (sometimes referred to as the Fighting) Team attached to 145 squadron in North Africa between March and June 1943. Mk.VIII were a few months behind that it arriving in theatre with the first going to 601 in June alongside Mk.V.

Fleshing that out a bit:

81 Squadron converted to Spitfire IX in North Africa during January 1943.

72 Squadron converted to Spitfire IX's in North Africa in February 1943 and they were immediately successful on operations.

As you mentioned, 145 and 92 Squadron were supplied with Spitfire IX's in North Africa in March 1943.

126 Squadron was using Spitfire IX's on Malta in March 1943.

126 Squadron was using Spitfire VIII's on Malta in June 1943.

 

[Warbirdnutball]

Funny what happens when you give a plane more endurance isn't it.

You mean the paddle blades? Those came out after the Famed Zemke Fan developed to catch the Luftwaffe before the bombers were even sighted. I've met and talked to both Hub Zemke and Gabby Gabreski. They explained to me about things in Europe in the early 90s. We talked for hours and explained a lot about what they went through from first hand experience. Also, those eight 50s had a bigger punch and could handle a LOT more punishment than that 51, no matter which wartime versions were used.

 

[drgondog]

You mean the paddle blades? Those came out after the Famed Zemke Fan developed to catch the Luftwaffe before the bombers were even sighted. I've met and talked to both Hub Zemke and Gabby Gabreski. They explained to me about things in Europe in the early 90s. We talked for hours and explained a lot about what they went through from first hand experience. Also, those eight 50s had a bigger punch and could handle a LOT more punishment than that 51, no matter which wartime versions were used.

IIRC - P-47D-11 were first to get the WI and Paddle blade installs in Jan 1944 timeframe. The 'Fan' was experimented with in May an by that time the 56th, 78th and 353rd had a sample of the bubble top P-47D-25 with the 370gal internal fuel capacity.

The Gabreski's lived next door to us when dad and gabby were at War College class together in 1955 at Maxwell. All true about more firepower but one of Zemke's bitterest disappointments was Landry/Schilling refusing P-51B at 56th FG when he (Zemke) was home on leave.? The 56th would have been selected earlier than 4th FG for conversion. That means the 56th would have had the range to get in ALL of the long range target fights in February.

He later went on to say that the P-51 was the better air combat choice over P-47 and P-38, when he transitioned the 479th FG from P-38s to P-51s in late September 1944.

Did Gabby tell you how much he liked the P-51H in CA NG post WWII?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Well, a different take would be that a longer range Spitfire would have hurt the daylight bomber offensive.

My understanding (albeit a little under informed) is that bomber escort was conducted in zones, or waves. The first zone, or wave, was conducted by Spitfires and P-47 ranging our about 250 miles (rough memory here), after that a second zone with P-47's and P-51's out to about 400 miles, and after that P-51's.

The Spitfire was being used in its best range and performance. Trying to extend the range, duplicates the capabilities of an already excellent aircraft (Mustang) and creates a void in the shorter coverage area.

Fighter Command was underemployed in 1943 in daylight, lots of areas to cover but few raids. The advantage of a longer range Spitfire works for insertion cover, it enables airfields further back from the coast to be used for that task. And again no one is trying come up with a second Mustang, rather a second 1943 P-47 range wise.

IIn 1943, the P-47 and P-38 were already in use. The Spitfire and P-47 were well used in the 200 and 400 mile arcs (ok, slightly shorter). Beyond that required a plane with really long range and that was the P-38 and Mustang. ... It seems to me that trying to give a Spitfire that kind of range is, in essence, trying to make it a Mustang.

The P-47 was in use in 1943 but without external tanks until the second half, the P-38 first mission, ignoring the units that went to North Africa from England, was 15 October 1943, first bomber escort on the 20th, it took until 28 December before a second P-38 group flew its first mission. First P-51 mission on 1 December, first escort mission on 5 December. Using first mission date, 3 operational P-47 groups on 13 April 1943, 4 on 12 August, 5 on 9 September, 6 on 14 September, 7 on 15 October, 8 on 13 December, 9 on 22 December.

In April 1943 the 8th Air Force had 6 Heavy Bomber Groups operational to 3 Fighter Groups, or 2 to 1, it was 4 to 1 by end May, 5 to 1 mid July to early August, 4 to 1 mid August, 3.3 to 1 on 9 October before finally dropping to 2.5 to 1 in mid October, it spent early 1944 under this, as low as 2.1 to 1 in late January before climbing to 2.5 to 1 in May and staying around this ratio for the rest of the war. Figures exclude the 9th Air Force fighter units, while the July and August 1943 figures benefit from 3 B-24 groups being in the Mediterranean.

Eaker had a fighter numbers as well as range problem.

The Spitfire VIII with a 90 gallon drop tank, vertical climb, fast cruise from airfield, similar return can make around 300 miles radius after allowances for combat and reserves. Does that make it a Mustang? Add a 33 gallon rear tank and you add another 80 miles to the radius. Now is it a Mustang? Increasingly after mid 1943 and certainly after mid October the 8th stayed within fighter escort range. The record of the P-47 in the 1943 and early 1944 period shows an aircraft matching its range should see a lot of combat. Roger Freeman reports the P-47 radius with an 84 gallon external tank as 280 miles in July 1943, then 325 miles with 108 gallons of external fuel in August then 375 miles with 165 gallons of external fuel in February 1944.

What we do not know is how the P-47 radius was calculated, so we can use the same profile for the Spitfire.

I appreciate your argument about extending the range of the Spitfire in 1942, but I think there are a number of factors working against you. First, I think the engineering to make a LR Spitfire is greater and more involved than adding gas tanks where possible. I'm not an aviation engineer, but from what I was able to read my guess is that you are looking at a fairly substantial redesign of parts of the aircraft to make it sounder that role.

The idea is an increase in 1943 over and above that the mark VIII achieved in 1942. Can you please provide the references make it clear fitting a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank into Spitfire VIII/IX/XVI would require substantial redesign, perhaps with examples drawn by the fitting of 1x75 or 2x33 gallon rear fuselage tanks into the mark XVI and IX in 1944/45 which would presumably have cause more substantial redesign problems?

It is generally agreed the longer range Spitfire did not happen in 1943 partly because no one was asking for it, until mid 1943 the Luftwaffe could generally still be encountered around the front line and while the P-47 was working its bugs out only the Merlin 60 series Spitfires had been shown to match German fighter performance. Result was a great demand for the latest Spitfires. Equipping existing underemployed Fighter Command squadrons with longer ranged fighters would not be a drain on the RAF.

You are adding almost 200lbs of fuel plus the weight of the tanks. over the weight of MK VIII with the existing tanks.
Why didn't they do themselves?
Some of the early MK VIIIs had a fuel cooler added in the port wing root. It may have depended on which engine and when the plane was built.
Some planes had a gun camera in the wing root/leading edge. That seems to have bounced back and forth Between sides?
When the MK VIII was being designed (not when they were built) what was the promised power out put of the Merlin engine?
You can reinforce the wings to handle more weight (if you have the time to do the calculations and the change the production drawings).

And the Spitfire VIII ended up cleared for 1,000 pounds of bombs or about the weight of a 33 gallon rear tank plus 90 gallon external. They actually did do it, in fact more than did it, by putting 2x33 or 1x75 gallon tanks in the IX and XVI rear fuselages, but in the second half of 1944. Here the requirement is 1x33 in the second half of 1943, using things like the results of the December 1942 trials and the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage ferry tank for the mark V, the one that had less weight forward so was not as able to carry rear fuselage loads.

As for engine power as designed does the same apply to the P-51? After all the D gained over 100 pounds empty and 300 pounds gross, so the D should be predicated on the 1942 Merlin power, since the Spitfire is 1941? Or can both designs do modifications in 1943 and 1944 based on the available engine power at the time? Did the P-51D "reinforce the wings to handle more weight (if you have the time to do the calculations and the change the production drawings)."?

Gun camera location? This is becoming very funny.

The Manual for the Spit says to have no more than 30 Imp gallons in the rear tanks (post war manual does not say 33 IMP, it says 30.) the handling trial from Jan 1945 used the metal covered elevator. I would very hesitant to use that recommendation on a normal MK IX and we do know that not all MK IXs used the same elevators.

You see when you simply post simple to check falsities it is hard to believe anything claimed. Morgan and Shacklady can be checked to show the early 1945 tests used a standard Spitfire that was also given hand made metal covered elevators for *some* of the tests, they made handling better. There were July 1944 tests on a mark VIII with a 75 gallon rear fuselage tank.

The proposal is a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank, the 75 gallon tank would have weighed about 42 pounds more, or 5 to 6 imperial gallons worth, secondly the pair of 33 gallon rear tanks was preferred because of fuel movement in the part filled 75 gallon tank when the aircraft moved. We know you are rather hesitant from your concerns about 1941 power levels, 1942 production numbers, gun camera position, fuel coolers, elevator coverings and the continued insistence on comparing the Spitfire to the Mustang, not the P-47 and a whole lot more negative ideas.

The much vaunted P-51 was used with 55 US gallons (45 Imp) in the rear tank, plus the 180 US (150 imp) gallons in the wing tanks.

Why do you think the P-51 was over rated? The proposed Spitfire with P-47 range has 124 imperial gallons front fuselage and wings, plus 33 imperial gallons rear fuselage, total 157 imperial, 188.5 US Gallons (or 17.444 British Firkins if you are firking around) when entering combat. No one expects the Spitfire to go out as far as the Mustang, even if it had the same drag. They do expect it to go out about as far as the P-47.

Warm up, take-off, and climb to 25,000ft can take a fair amount of fuel and combat allowance of 5 minutes WEP and 15 minutes military can also suck up fuel.
A Mustang with wing tanks and 75 US gallon drop tanks and no rear fuselage was carrying close to 2000lbs of fuel for take off.
A Spitfire needs to lift over 270 Imp gallons of fuel for that weight.

Of course the Spitfire allowances for take off etc. have been given several times, but somehow we need to be told how expensive climb and combat are, for the Mustang plus apparently the Spitfire needs to carry 270 imperial gallons, no idea why. The extra weight of the Mustang would mean maybe a third more fuel to climb to the same altitude as the Spitfire.

Imperial (British) gallons in 1 long ton, 2,240 pounds, 100 octane avgas 315, other grade avgas and motor spirit (petroleum/gasoline MT80) 300, Diesel 259, marine diesel 250, RN oil fuel 238. A Slug is 1 Geepound or 14.594 kilograms, if overweight consider quoting yourself in gee what big pounds, though not sure saying you are so many slugs would work as well, unless knocking back whisky perhaps.

The problem comes with the 300 plus.

You are going to need about 1 imp gallon for every 5 miles you go in and 1 imp gallon for every 5 miles you come out.
350 mile radius is going to need and extra 20 gallons.

And with even a 90imp gallon drop tank you are over the normal max gross weight and may be restricted as to what runways you can use.

As has been pointed out the profile is fast cruise from airfield to return to airfield and 33 gallons adds 80 miles to the combat radius. Add possible problems with runways to the longer range Spitfire what a disaster list.

Well, they did go to 120-123 gallons when they had the chance, but that was one factory while an other factory stayed with 85 and 96 gallon set up.

124 gallons, and 85 gallons.

The question we have been arguing over for over 12 pages is, while you can't equal the Mustang, how close can you get with a plane that was around 77% as heavy when clean (neither using rear tanks)?
The MK VIIIs went to NA/Italy and the Far east because that is where they needed the extra range.

The mark VIII was meant for overseas service, dust filters as standard. And actually much of the last many pages has been about keeping the Spitfire range the same as the P-47 in 1943/44, answer take a slight production hit at Supermarine and use the 1942 data about rear fuselage ferry tanks to fit a 33 gallon tank in the final quarter of 1943, take a bigger production hit at Castle Bromwich to increase fuel tankage to the 124 gallon mark when it switches to Merlin 60 series Spitfires in mid 1943, then later add the 33 gallon tank. The reason it has gone on for so many pages is the continual erasing of the P-47, replaced by the P-51 for comparisons and one of the biggest efforts in a long time to throw everything and anything against an idea considered bad in the hope something sticks.

As the calculations show, the need for 75 or 66 gallons in the rear fuselage was actually close to zero for the missions the RAF did in 1944/45, including escorting Bomber Command to the Ruhr, as by that stage most of the route was in friendly airspace, no need for fast cruise until near the target. The Spitfire 21 was on a different development track and being a 1943 design was not expected to have the reach Germany range, though of course the XIV did it, add the F.21 handling problems and no one was going to increase them with more weight to the rear. The F.22 added a 33 gallon tank, the F.24 2x33.

Which Type of Spitfire did they think they were going to need for the end of the NA campaign and the invasion of Sicily and Italy?

The Italian campaign bogged down and they often didn't make very fast advances making the air war somewhat static and perhaps they weren't getting the supplies of aircraft that they wanted and had to make do with substitutes?

Initially the mark V, which had its troubles with the Bf109G, followed by the mark VIII, but then the Fw190 turned up and the VIII was late. So Fighter Command gave up some of its mark IX as a result. The Italian campaign first bog down was around October 1943, mainly as the Germans did not defend southern Italy against 8th Army, there was a slow advance October to January.

Thanks for an amusing way to spend an hour.

Rough rule of calc for Merlin 60 series is 5mi/gal (as good as cleaner - less drag- Mustang) = 60 gallons for 300 miles at 300mph, plus 30 gal for loiter = 90 gallons internal required to make it back to base.

Spitfire VIII 320 mph 66 gallons per hour consumption. Is loiter in addition to reserves?

 

[Warbirdnutball]

IIRC - P-47D-11 were first to get the WI and Paddle blade installs in Jan 1944 timeframe. The 'Fan' was experimented with in May an by that time the 56th, 78th and 353rd had a sample of the bubble top P-47D-25 with the 370gal internal fuel capacity.

The Gabreski's lived next door to us when dad and gabby were at War College class together in 1955 at Maxwell. All true about more firepower but one of Zemke's bitterest disappointments was Landry/Schilling refusing P-51B at 56th FG when he (Zemke) was home on leave.? The 56th would have been selected earlier than 4th FG for conversion. That means the 56th would have had the range to get in ALL of the long range target fights in February.

He later went on to say that the P-51 was the better air combat choice over P-47 and P-38, when he transitioned the 479th FG from P-38s to P-51s in late September 1944.

Did Gabby tell you how much he liked the P-51H in CA NG post WWII?

We talked about their books and their experiences in WWII and Korea (with Gabby). Neither talked to me about the P-51 either way. Maybe they sensed I didn't like it. The only plane from Korea we discussed was his F-86. We're were only able to talk for 3 days when they were visiting. It was for a release of one of the art pictures of their exploits. Maybe I was just starstruck with actually meeting them. I do know my memory isn't the greatest anymore due to a car accident. All I do know is we discussed their history with the 56th and Korea. I couldn't monopolize their time as to the circumstances. You obviously had more interaction with them thereby have a deeper knowledge of them. I apologize for stepping on toes. I'll just leave.

 

[drgondog]

We talked about their books and their experiences in WWII and Korea (with Gabby). Neither talked to me about the P-51 either way. Maybe they sensed I didn't like it. The only plane from Korea we discussed was his F-86. We're were only able to talk for 3 days when they were visiting. It was for a release of one of the art pictures of their exploits. Maybe I was just starstruck with actually meeting them. I do know my memory isn't the greatest anymore due to a car accident. All I do know is we discussed their history with the 56th and Korea. I couldn't monopolize their time as to the circumstances. You obviously had more interaction with them thereby have a deeper knowledge of them. I apologize for stepping on toes. I'll just leave.

You didn't step on my toes. Folks have different opinions about every subject on this site and you sure as hell have nothing to either apologize or leave for.

 

[WARSPITER]

You didn't step on my toes. Folks have different opinions about every subject on this site and you sure as hell have nothing to either apologize or leave for.

I agree fully. Seeing posts from people who have had interaction with 'those on the spot' is invaluable. Recollections can differ over time and there are things
that will never be clear cut but the more we all get to see the better the understanding.

I am far less likely to 'reverse armchair' and say what should have or could have happened as I now know there are so many factors involved even down to
personality clashes that caused huge cock ups to occur. It's not all numbers and stats.

So yes, keep them cards and letters coming folks. Very much appreciated.

 

[drgondog]

I agree fully. Seeing posts from people who have had interaction with 'those on the spot' is invaluable. Recollections can differ over time and there are things
that will never be clear cut but the more we all get to see the better the understanding.

I am far less likely to 'reverse armchair' and say what should have or could have happened as I now know there are so many factors involved even down to
personality clashes that caused huge cock ups to occur. It's not all numbers and stats.

So yes, keep them cards and letters coming folks. Very much appreciated.

Lol - well you are conversing with one involved in a few 'cock ups' or two.

 

[WARSPITER]

Well, we learn from our mistakes and we learn even more from others.

It's when the mistakes are not acknowledged that we all suffer the process of repeating them.

I know this from my repeated attempts at wargaming.