Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The very best of the newly qualified pilots were often chosen to stay in the training schools as instructors. One of the inducements often used was to give them a commission. Notice, 'inducements', they could insist on going back to the UK as Sgt Pilots. The most extreme case I read of was one where the head of the flying school promised that if he didn't stay in the USA he would ensure that he was posted there as a pilot of a target tug. Clearly this wasn't a threat that could be carried out but it shows the thinking. The next best pilots were sent to Bomber Command, then fighter command and finally the rest.
They were very clear on that. A BC pilot had the lives of other people in their hands, almost invariably flew at night in all weathers and often damaged. Skill was the first priority.
I
A number of years ago I spent a day in the National Archives in London and there was a folder on everything to do with the training of pilots from before the war to the end. It had all been collated to write a book on the training. Unfortunately the book was never written, but they kept all the research in the one folder. It was quite fascinating as it also compared the training the pilots received in the UK, overseas and in the USA both in the British training schools in the USA, and in the USAAF training schools.
This isn't about who was most suited for which task, it was about what the policy was. The policy may not have been correct, in hindsight.
But policy drives how you select people and selection is based on assessment. Any training course must have an assessment criteria...and then you evaluate people based on those criteria. I may be awesome at football but crap at cricket. I'm still a sportsman. Do I get pushed into the cricket team just because of policy? That doesn't make sense to me.
Not everything during war time makes sense. A Fairey Fulmar as a carrier fighter doesn't make sense to me. A non-functional Mark 13 torpedo doesn't make sense to me. But this is what happened.
Don't get me started on the armor piercing shells with the creamy nougat filling.
All I'm asking for is the measurement criteria for how the RAF determined which pilots were "the best." The must have had such a thing. It could simply be the person who scored best in all of the various theoretical and practical tests that formed part of the training regime. If so, then they literally would take someone ideally suited to fly fighters and slap him into bombers. I'd simply like to understand the documentation to back up the statement about how pilots were pushed into various roles.
I think Glider literally posted a thread on it
All I'm asking for is the measurement criteria for how the RAF determined which pilots were "the best."
They went to Top Gun. Only the best of the best go there to find out who is the best.
View attachment 708023
Come on, you had to know that was coming.
Chris...go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!!!!
By the reckoning upthread, Guy Gibson must have been the best pilot in the world.
Do you have evidence of Kittyhawks doing this routinely? The absolute ceiling of a Kittyhawk I is >30,000 ft.Actually both Kittyhawks and Spitfire Vs shot down recon Ju 88s routinely.
This statement cannot be taken seriously.the Imperial Japanese Navy was by far the most serious Axis naval threat in WW2, and the battles in the Pacific were by far the most dire, fraught, and dangerous naval engagements of the war.
It didn't make it clear but a normal process would be scores and instructor assessments and that I am sure you already know.As to BC taking "the best", it rather depends how one classifies "the best." If you have a pilot who is superlative at aerobatics, formation flying and formation leading, it makes little sense to put him in a 4-engined heavy that flies alone at night. Did the documents you read provide any indication of how they measured "the best" in terms of the skills they were grading?
DK Brown, in Carrier Fighters summarized the battle:Regarding the Sea Hurricane at Pedestal, using Malta the Spitfire Year as the source the rough kills per aircraft type are,
32 SH1 18.5 kills
20 Fulmars 6.5 kills
10 Martlets 4 kills
Overall the SH1 is the best performer and has the best results but very importantly, the aircraft were directed and used in a complementary fashion.
Over the course of WWII the SH1 and SH2 had a positive combat kill to death ratio of somewhere between 5-7 to 1.
The Martlets were intended to patrol at medium level, with the Hurricanes
above them at 20,000 feet. During the critical day's passage to the south of
Sardinia eighteen fighters would be maintained on patrol at all times, with
as many more at immediate readiness; if attack appeared to be imminent,
then twelve more fighters would be flown off, so that a total of forty-eight
fighters might be airborne at once.
Eagle
801 Squadron 12 Sea Hurricanes
(plus four spare)
813 Squadron 4 Sea Hurricanes
Victorious
809 Squadron 10 Fulmar IIs
884 Squadron 6 Fulmar IIs
885 Squadron 5 Sea Hurricanes
Indomitable
800 Squadron 12 Sea Hurricanes
806 Squadron 9 Martlet IIs
880 Squadron 10 Sea Hurricanes....
...to make room for those which were less unserviceable, Victorious had
eight Sea Hurricanes, three Martlets, and ten Fulmars - exactly the same
number as she had possessed on passing Gibraltar. Seven fighters had
been lost in combat during the day - three Fulmars, three Sea Hurricanes,
and a Martlet, but when the claims were analysed the pilots were credited
with thirty-eight victories, four by the Martlets, nine by the outclassed
Fulmars, and twenty-five by the Sea Hurricanes. Four pilots and two Ful-
mar telegraphists were lost with their aircraft.
By any standards, the shipboard fighters had scored a victory. The
enemy had held the initiative throughout 12th August, attacking in great
strength, with an escort which always outnumbered the defenders. Not
until the third raid did the fighters manage to subdue the tired naval pilots,
most of whom were flying their third or fourth sorties of the day. Even
then, the sixty-one attack aircraft managed to obtain only two really
damaging hits and they neglected the convoy, which was of far greater
strategic significance.
Do you have evidence of Kittyhawks doing this routinely? The absolute ceiling of a Kittyhawk I is >30,000 ft.
This statement cannot be taken seriously.
Regarding the Hurricane vs Zero/KI 43 I have posted this many times. This is written by an actual Hurricane pilot who flew many combat missions against these types.
The question is if any other fighter of the time, in similar conditions , have done any better? Or perhaps much better?The dismal record of Hurricane vs Ki 43 speaks for itself.