I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with are these points Imperfect training doesn't mean no training. Poor marksmanship does not mean the RAF didn't hit anything. Training people to shoot who cant fly well enough to keep themselves alive is a waste of time. The notion that RAF pilots in the BoB did not know that hitting the crew, engines and fuel tanks was important, is fanciful to the point of insulting. The best means of attack maybe a beam attack, just work out the maths of a fighter at 300 MPH trying to hit a bomber at 200MPH at 90 degrees, if you do it right bingo, if you screw up the fraction of a second you have to hit then it is back to square one. The LW were more experienced in escorting than the RAF were in attacking bombers in 1940, they knew what "bandits" wanted to do and positioned themselves to stop it. BTW I would have thought the first issue to be confronted was to get your planes in the air, where were Thatch and his gunnery experts at Pearl Harbor, where was the radar warning and trained equipped forces, surely the most important thing is to actually take off, in 1941, a year and a half after the Battle of Britain.Since you apparently still disagree with the simple notion that pilots that can hit enemy planes with their weapons is an asset:
Could you please explain to everyone how not having a clue about air to air gunnery is the way to win a battle? I mean I only have 43 years experience with firearms and you've never picked one up but apparently but you have seen some on TV so you must know it all. Please enlighten us.
Last edited: