I've typed it several times already, the USA apparently wasn't doing much if any better, Richard Bong, our highest scoring ace said he had little or no gunnery training and he said he did much better after he got gunnery training sometime later in the war. He said we would have got more kills early on if he had gunnery trading at the beginning. Did you get that? It's about the 3rd or fourth time I've said it. Apparently the US Navy was one of the few groups that was really really teaching air to air gunnery.What "reserve" 200 were lost in France. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway how many pilots did the USA lose? How long after the battle of Britain was that? How much had the USA already expanded its training programmes after Sept 3rd 1939?
The RAF did not have their entire force right on the channel, they had groups they held back. Train 20 guys every day for a week and swap them out with 20 guys at the front, train them. It's only a few but every pilot with better training could make a difference. 1 pilot with good gunnery training shoots down a 109 that he would have missed. That 109 doesn't shoot down another pilot that lives long enough to get gunnery training and he does the same thing. Anyway, I get massive expansion causing training issues, the USA had the same problem, should have been addressed here as well. We had more resources and were not nearly as hard pressed as Britain and an extra week or 2 of gunnery training shouldn't have been an issue but yet we apparently dropped the ball as well.