Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Between July and November 1940 only 900 of the 2,937 pilots credited with at least one operational sortie in a fighter claimed at all. Roughly 70% of pilots were just making up numbers.
It is a definite advantage in hitting the target, the stream of bullets are always on the same axis as the gunsight. The problem is it is hard to get more than 2 rifle calibre guns to do it and they have a lower rate of fire than any wing mounted gun.So while I'm very much in the camp of concentrating the fire I do see the point of the spread layout, It's also why I don't see how the center line gun layout such as the 109F or P38 is an advantage, unless you have crack air gunnery skills having a very narrow cone of fire only increases the chances of missing.
The notion that RAF pilots in the BoB did not know that hitting the crew, engines and fuel tanks is fanciful to the point of insulting.
It was actually a change in warfare. Pilots were like infantry, they were in lethal hand to hand combat. They needed a high degree of courage, and many physical skills of coordination ,balance, spatial awareness but also a very good basic education, like choosing which 1000 university graduates you would send into a knife fight today. Pre WW2 how many people had even driven a car let alone knew how they worked?I think we all need to take a moment to remember what it was like in 1940's Britain, you had boys, and they were boys, that most likely had never traveled out of their own district or village going to fight, these were boys that grew up on their family farm or worked in the family butchery that had never seen an airplane let alone fly one, most of them had probably never kissed a girl or felt the love of a women. These boys, absolute hero's to the last in every sense of the word suddenly found themselves in a Spitfire or Hurricane doing 300 mph at 20,000ft over the channel trying to hit a similar boy in a Bf 109 who was likewise doing the same, any notion that they were aiming at anything other than the big black blob rapidly filling their windscreen is fanciful. They would all know where the important area's are on enemy aircraft, knowing and doing are two very different things. Sometimes threads become heated like this one, to bad soaringtractor got banned, he was hilarious.
. 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
The first production F4F-3 had its first flight in February 1940. The second production F4F-3 in July 1940. It would seem that there was a hold up in deliveries of the 2 stage R-1830.
too bad soaringtractor got banned, he was hilarious.
In October 1940, the British had received 81 Martlets, presumably all Martlet Is, because the first production Martlet II (with 2 speed single stage R-1830) had its first flight earlier that month. And many (all?) of the Martlet Is were from the French order that the British took over.
In the US and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and Germany, many. In the rest of the world, not so many. The US generation that fought WWII grew up between wars driving and tinkering on cars, trucks, tractors, and for some, even airplanes. The vast expanse of the country demanded mechanical transportation, and the thin population density precluded profitably serving everywhere by rail. And nationalized rail, a la Europe, forget it!Pre WW2 how many people had even driven a car let alone knew how they worked?
And a lot of that skill was from shooting birds. Excellent prep for aerial gunnery and pulling lead on a moving target. Have you ever seen the training they had for aerial gunners? A stake body truck with a shooting platform on the back that drove around a circular track with skeet houses every fifty yards or so with their launchers aimed at different angles, and the student gunner popping pigeons with a semiautomatic shotgun. After that, they get to do it again with another truck mounting a power turret with a .30 cal shooting special short range ammo.Not only was there an innate mechanical advantage borne of having to make things work, outside of the few major cities, most boys began shooting at a very early age. Growing up in the sparse times of the Great Depression, every shot counted, so basic marksmanship skills were expected.
They were in San Diego, 2600 miles away. yep, the Americans screwed up the early warning, but whatever mistakes the Americans made ( many) doesn't mean the British get a pass for mistakes they made.
In the US and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and Germany, many. In the rest of the world, not so many. The US generation that fought WWII grew up between wars driving and tinkering on cars, trucks, tractors, and for some, even airplanes. The vast expanse of the country demanded mechanical transportation, and the thin population density precluded profitably serving everywhere by rail. And nationalized rail, a la Europe, forget it!
You could call it "mechanical advantage". Even destitute poor folk like the Joads in Grapes of Wrath could find a way to acquire an ancient Model T Ford (converted to a pickup truck) in which to make their exodus to California, stopping along the way to grind the valves and fashion new head gaskets out of scrounged materials. This fostered a level of mechanical and operational experience and ingenuity on a broad scale that manifested itself in Construction Battalions, engine rooms, aircraft and tank maintenance shops, and a ready adaptability to aerial, mechanized, and naval warfare on a scale unmatched in the world.
There, chest thumping accomplished. Ready to receive counterfire.
You might also explain how the Germans lost 1,187* aircraft during the Battle of Britain
My copy of BoBTaN gives 1887 German losses in the summary table at the back of the book,
Not contesting that point; it was the backbone of long distance transportation. It just didn't (and couldn't) reach into every small farming and light industry community, necessitating development and growth of a trucking industry. Ironically, this has in the long run led to the decline of railroads in the US.For all your criticism of rail, it was still the primary cross-country means of transportation in America.
In terms of the discussion, what is a "mistake". To replace pilot losses at the height of the BoB with pilots who have 200 hours on type and 25 hours of gunnery training you need to start expanding your training schools long before war is declared and send many front line pilots and planes into those schools? Did "Thatch" instigate such a programme or anyone else in the USA? The Battle of Britain was a battle of attrition. The aim of the LW was to destroy the RAF and the aim of the RAF was to destroy so many LW bombers and crews that they gave up. The whole "thing" for the LW was to destroy RAF fighters with pilots quicker than they could be replaced, if you take out the experienced and elite then the new to theatre combatants are easy meat, this is the same in all theatres of warfare. I can accept any discussion of poor training, or lack of training or lack of focus on marksmanship and poor marksmanship. What I cannot accept is that there was no training, that no one cared about lack of training or poor marksmanship and I will not accept that the RAF hit nothing. The "helpful" suggestion that RAF pilots in the BoB should be told to aim for the engines, fuel, or crew compartment is an insult to the intelligence, some of them were aces and they were actually winning in the battle from its start to its end. There is no doubt that the US had an excellent pilot training programme in place by 1943 but its pilots were finishing their training in UK and they had to postpone their Bombing strategy for a long time to achieve it. In the adoration of Thatch I am surprised this wasn't mentioned. Similarly with such brilliant training and marksmanship in US forces they would surely have swept the LW out of Africa in weeks? Why didnt they? I am a great admirer of John S Thatch and all he did, until someone tries to portray everyone else in the world at the time as an imbecile.They were in San Diego, 2600 miles away. yep, the Americans screwed up the early warning, but whatever mistakes the Americans made ( many) doesn't mean the British get a pass for mistakes they made.
.