PDA

View Full Version : Was the Quality of Pilot Training More Important than the Aircraft?



MB_Avro_UK
02-13-2008, 06:20 PM
Hi all,

Was training a major factor?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
02-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Yes, in most circumstances.

The Germans in 1944 and early `45 had some pretty good aircraft, yet still lost them in droves to Allied pilots. I believe this was mainly due to the lack of experienced LW pilots by this time. Same in the later part of the pacific war.

MB_Avro_UK
02-13-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yes, in most circumstances.

The Germans in 1944 and early `45 had some pretty good aircraft, yet still lost them in droves to Allied pilots. I believe this was mainly due to the lack of experienced LW pilots by this time. Same in the later part of the pacific war.

I agree. There's no point in having a top of the range aircraft without adequate pilot training.

This is a topic that is not often mentioned but in my opinion is very important.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
02-13-2008, 06:59 PM
If the pilot was in a P-26, like the Philippine AF fighter pilots, against a Zero, all the training in the world was for naught. The 1941-42 Japanese B5N2 torpedo bomber pilots were the bravest and most skilled there were, but they were slaughtered in the flimsy airplane.

tjaika1910
02-13-2008, 07:02 PM
It is not a novel idea that Luftwaffe broke because of lack of trained pilots. The allies took experienced pilots out of the combat and used the for instructors, while the german pilots remained in the frontline (also crippled the academies with taking away the valuable instrucktors)

+ lack of fuel in the end.

Many pilots was put in the Me262 only because that fuel was more available.

And finally, better planes only for the better pilots. In Battle of Britain the inexperianced british pilots had Spitfire, which was more rookie-friendly.

tjaika1910
02-13-2008, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
If the pilot was in a P-26, like the Philippine AF fighter pilots, against a Zero, all the training in the world was for naught. The 1941-42 Japanese B5N2 torpedo bomber pilots were the bravest and most skilled there were, but they were slaughtered in the flimsy airplane.

No, but the highly trained polish pilots did well against the german battleexperienced pilots. The german had great advantage in plane.

In Norway, the Gladiators did well against Me110, but then again, that aircraft was hyped on that time. The germans still thought it was their best until the Battle of Britain.

JSG72
02-13-2008, 07:12 PM
Of course.

Training Is a major factor. Whenever?

No point in having an "Uber plane" if only few of your pilots can fly it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Better to have a Friendly plane that any LCD. can have some sort of wherwhithall with. Surely?

jarink
02-13-2008, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by tjaika1910:
In Battle of Britain the inexperianced british pilots had Spitfire, which was more rookie-friendly.

I had always heard that the Spit was a fairly hard plane for newbie pilots to transition to, due to the high amount of torque, narrow track landing gear and lack of forward vision when taking off or landing.

tjaika1910
02-13-2008, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjaika1910:
In Battle of Britain the inexperianced british pilots had Spitfire, which was more rookie-friendly.

I had always heard that the Spit was a fairly hard plane for newbie pilots to transition to, due to the high amount of torque, narrow track landing gear and lack of forward vision when taking off or landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am no expert, but I dont think this is necessarily true in the Battle of Britain even if it is certainly true for the later models. I do not recal which it was... maybe the XIX, five bladed propellor, very powerfull engine and opposite torque than uptil then. Nasty surprice I'll guess.

M_Gunz
02-13-2008, 08:24 PM
Compared to the trainer planes, any real fighter is a big step. How many hours in 'type' is
a measure of training though. During the BoB they sent up rookies with 10 and less hours in
type and some of those survived long enough to learn the fighting parts.

If the Spitfire was so hard to take off and land then read what Spit pilots who got the chance
to fly captured 109's had to say about it! A little relative comparison to temper the absolute
'literal' when it comes to interpreting words from one age and experience level to ours.

I've read that US pilots were getting 150 hours in type and still on arriving were rookies who
had a LOT to learn.

You might as well ask if eyesight made a difference. Then maybe spend time is small planes
trying to spot the contacts air traffic tells you about, LOL!

flyingloon
02-14-2008, 09:12 AM
would it be plausible to suggest that the luftwaffe was as screwed as the army by Stalingrad? in that the air resupply attempt was bolstered with aircraft and instructors from the flight schools, experienced instructors that would be lost in the folly of flying over the encirclement and into the kessel, through flak and fighters in the air and artillery fire on the ground. i do not have numbers to hand, but a significant number of transports and bombers were lost in this action, and the experienced instructors were never truly replaced in the flight schools. any thoughts on this?
without well trained, capable pilots the best planes in the world are useless. an aircrafts speed may keep them alive or durability may bring them home, but with a lack of training and ability their effectiveness as weapons is virtually nil.

Badsight-
02-15-2008, 10:10 PM
according to pilot accounts , the IJAAF & IJNAF held daily practices

regardless of weather

they were of the most highly trained when they joined WW2

id love to know how well the US pilots could have fared if they were using a Zero equal , like the Curtis CW21 instead of the Wildcats

leitmotiv
02-16-2008, 03:09 AM
Er, the German fighters absolutely suppressed the Norwegian Gladiators. Thank God the USN/USMC had Wildcats which broke the back of the IJN elite over Guadalcanal---if they had had CW21s we would have been decisively defeated. Polish fighter and bomber pilots did as well as they could but they did did not seriously attrit the Germans---how could they? There were too few of them and frankly their airplanes were like the P-26---throwbacks to the early '30's and not even competitive.

Outside of Gameworld, there are absolute limits on what will can accomplish. If the British had fought the Battle of Britain with Gloster Gauntlets, Hawker Furies, and Vickers Virginias they would now be speaking a German dialect.

Badsight-
02-16-2008, 03:24 AM
well the CW21 had dominate DF ability over the wildcat

better climbrate over the Zero . close speed & power

the Wildcat was outclassed in every way , except for armour plate thickness

pilotpimpf
02-16-2008, 04:13 AM
Back to topic.....
Training and advanced aircraft go hand in hand, when one or other declines then your battle is lost.

JtD
02-16-2008, 05:06 AM
It's the pilot, not the plane. Very true statement. Still, a Sopwith Camel hardly stands a chance of intercepting a Mirage raid.

Had the Germans and Japanese training facilities continuously turned out pilots with a quality they had in 1939, the air war both in Europe and the Pacific would have taken a quite different way.

The-Pizza-Man
02-16-2008, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjaika1910:
In Battle of Britain the inexperianced british pilots had Spitfire, which was more rookie-friendly.

I had always heard that the Spit was a fairly hard plane for newbie pilots to transition to, due to the high amount of torque, narrow track landing gear and lack of forward vision when taking off or landing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was difficult to transition to in a sense as it was completely different to anything the pilots would have flown before, at least initially before more advanced trainers like the Havard were used. You have to remember aircraft like the spitfire were completely revolutionary, the aircraft of the previous generation didn't have enclosed cockpits, flaps or retractable undercarriage.

buzzsaw1939
02-16-2008, 08:03 AM
All the training in the world doesn't meen squat, if your pushing up daises before you can gain experiance!

M_Gunz
02-16-2008, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
according to pilot accounts , the IJAAF & IJNAF held daily practices

regardless of weather

they were of the most highly trained when they joined WW2

id love to know how well the US pilots could have fared if they were using a Zero equal , like the Curtis CW21 instead of the Wildcats

I thought that once they got the tactics down US pilots did okay with the Wildcats?
And they they got Corsairs. Though reading about the condition of some of those in the hard
times at Henderson Field, it was good that Rabaul was so far away.

M_Gunz
02-16-2008, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
All the training in the world doesn't meen squat, if your pushing up daises before you can gain experiance!

If my nose spent more time pointed at the instrument panel than outside or I just didn't know
how to fly worth a dump and couldn't make speed nor height, wouldn't I be an easier target?

That's not to say that training is going to teach all of what to look out for by a long shot!
Yeager got shot down not too long after starting combat didn't he? But just the once, I have
his book somewhere here from where the VA library was clearing books out.

leitmotiv
02-16-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
well the CW21 had dominate DF ability over the wildcat

better climbrate over the Zero . close speed & power

the Wildcat was outclassed in every way , except for armour plate thickness

The Wildcat was a fighting machine. The CW21 was a profit opportunity for the extremely corrupt Curtiss Company (which, by the way, was shut down by the US Gov at the end of the war for corruption on a cosmic scale). The Wildcat was manifestly superior to the A6M2 in firepower, protection and its equal at high altitude. The Marines at Guadalcanal seized control of the tactical battle by refusing to fight a maneuver battle with the Zeros and rigidly stuck to hit-and-run tactics until they had demoralized and killed enough good Japanese pilots, and then they even took on the Zeros in maneuver fighting. The A6M2 at Guadalcanal was not only handicapped by flying at the end of its range, but they had to retain their drop tanks to get home---something, of course, not present in gametime fighting with IL-2. Furthermore, they lacked radios and could not match coordinated USMC tactics. See the definitive: THE FIRST TEAM AND THE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN by Lundstrom. In truth, the best weapon the Japanese had against the doughty Puss was the guns of battleships and cruisers used to bombard the airfields on Guad. The A6M2 was comprehensively defeated by the Marine Wildcats.

JtD
02-16-2008, 02:11 PM
In FB, the Wildcat outclassed the A6M2 - even without the latter carrying droptanks.

Now one has to say that the US pilots weren't that bad, they did get a good training. Of course the battle experienced Japanese pilots had the edge, but the US hardly ever had to resort to pilots with 50 hours behind the stick to put them in the midst of fighting.

leitmotiv
02-16-2008, 02:24 PM
The Japanese pilots met their match over Guadalcanal because the Marines were better than they. The Japanese were fighting Australians and AAF fighters over Port Moresby at the same time, but were beating them because they were not remotely as well trained (the American P-39 pilots were mostly bomber pilots transferred hastily to fighters without training in them). Furthermore, USMC tactics were more sophisticated, four aircraft sections, radio communications, and they refused to play the A6M2's game.

We didn't get the Wildcats until PAC FIGHTERS. They were dead meat in a maneuver battle, as well they ought to have been.

berg417448
02-16-2008, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
[ The CW21 was a profit opportunity for the extremely corrupt Curtiss Company (which, by the way, was shut down by the US Gov at the end of the war for corruption on a cosmic scale).


I thought it was Brewster that was taken over by the government and then shut down?
Curtiss Wright is still in existence today.

SeaFireLIV
02-16-2008, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
well the CW21 had dominate DF ability over the wildcat

better climbrate over the Zero . close speed & power

the Wildcat was outclassed in every way , except for armour plate thickness

The Wildcat was a fighting machine. The CW21 was a profit opportunity for the extremely corrupt Curtiss Company (which, by the way, was shut down by the US Gov at the end of the war for corruption on a cosmic scale). The Wildcat was manifestly superior to the A6M2 in firepower, protection and its equal at high altitude. The Marines at Guadalcanal seized control of the tactical battle by refusing to fight a maneuver battle with the Zeros and rigidly stuck to hit-and-run tactics until they had demoralized and killed enough good Japanese pilots, and then they even took on the Zeros in maneuver fighting. The A6M2 at Guadalcanal was not only handicapped by flying at the end of its range, but they had to retain their drop tanks to get home---something, of course, not present in gametime fighting with IL-2. Furthermore, they lacked radios and could not match coordinated USMC tactics. See the definitive: THE FIRST TEAM AND THE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN by Lundstrom. In truth, the best weapon the Japanese had against the doughty Puss was the guns of battleships and cruisers used to bombard the airfields on Guad. The A6M2 was comprehensively defeated by the Marine Wildcats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm. Very interesting stuff.

leitmotiv
02-16-2008, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
[ The CW21 was a profit opportunity for the extremely corrupt Curtiss Company (which, by the way, was shut down by the US Gov at the end of the war for corruption on a cosmic scale).


I thought it was Brewster that was taken over by the government and then shut down?
Curtiss Wright is still in existence today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The airplane company was busted, and you are exactly right, Brewster was shut down for gross mismanagement of govt contracts. What screwed Curtiss was out-and-out corruption---Eugene O'Neil even wrote a play about it.

leitmotiv
02-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
well the CW21 had dominate DF ability over the wildcat

better climbrate over the Zero . close speed & power

the Wildcat was outclassed in every way , except for armour plate thickness

The Wildcat was a fighting machine. The CW21 was a profit opportunity for the extremely corrupt Curtiss Company (which, by the way, was shut down by the US Gov at the end of the war for corruption on a cosmic scale). The Wildcat was manifestly superior to the A6M2 in firepower, protection and its equal at high altitude. The Marines at Guadalcanal seized control of the tactical battle by refusing to fight a maneuver battle with the Zeros and rigidly stuck to hit-and-run tactics until they had demoralized and killed enough good Japanese pilots, and then they even took on the Zeros in maneuver fighting. The A6M2 at Guadalcanal was not only handicapped by flying at the end of its range, but they had to retain their drop tanks to get home---something, of course, not present in gametime fighting with IL-2. Furthermore, they lacked radios and could not match coordinated USMC tactics. See the definitive: THE FIRST TEAM AND THE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN by Lundstrom. In truth, the best weapon the Japanese had against the doughty Puss was the guns of battleships and cruisers used to bombard the airfields on Guad. The A6M2 was comprehensively defeated by the Marine Wildcats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm. Very interesting stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lundstrom's two FIRST TEAM books on the USN fighters vs the Japanese are classics. He did his digging in Japanese sources, too, to give the reader an unmatched history of this air war.

buzzsaw1939
02-16-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
All the training in the world doesn't meen squat, if your pushing up daises before you can gain experiance!

If my nose spent more time pointed at the instrument panel than outside or I just didn't know
how to fly worth a dump and couldn't make speed nor height, wouldn't I be an easier target?

That's not to say that training is going to teach all of what to look out for by a long shot!
Yeager got shot down not too long after starting combat didn't he? But just the once, I have
his book somewhere here from where the VA library was clearing books out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup!... My implication is that, you can have lots of good training, and know your plane in and out, but if you don't have the ability to fly the plane like it's part of you, which comes with experiance, your chances of survival are reduced, history books are full of stories of the guys who made it, but I don't think I've ever read anthing about the guys who got killed on his first couple of missions! same training! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I guess what I'm saying is if you can survive long enough to gain experiance, your oods are much higher!

DKoor
02-16-2008, 05:58 PM
****

Are wings more important than engine?


////


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

M_Gunz
02-17-2008, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
Yup!... My implication is that, you can have lots of good training, and know your plane in and out, but if you don't have the ability to fly the plane like it's part of you, which comes with experiance, your chances of survival are reduced, history books are full of stories of the guys who made it, but I don't think I've ever read anthing about the guys who got killed on his first couple of missions! same training! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I guess what I'm saying is if you can survive long enough to gain experiance, your oods are much higher!

I agree to all of that, esp the last line. In many war histories, during the action there were
those who had set "how many missions" marks on when you've beat the odds by some large percent.
The Vietnam Vets I served under spoke that way but they also said you can get hit or killed at
any time no matter who you are so stay on your toes.

mortoma
02-17-2008, 11:20 AM
Training was very important since not all planes in the time period were easy to fly. There is a tremendous difference as to the difficulty levels of learning to handle various warplanes in WWI and WWII!! A good example in WWI were planes like the Fokker DVII and the Sopwith Camel. The Fokker was so easy to fly they could have trained little girls to effectively fight in it, but the Sopwith was so difficult it killed many experienced pilots the first they even tried to take off in it!! In most cases though, most combat aircraft in both wars were difficult to master and that's not something that we experience in the IL2 series, where all the simulated aircraft are extremely easy to fly. In WWII, by far most fighters and bombers were hard to learn to fly and hard to continue to fly without killing yourself in non-combat, let alone combat. There were notable exceptions like the Japanese KI-100. But even planes like the P-40 and the Hurricane were handfuls to fly ( notice in the game they are both super easy ). And the B-26 Marauder? Fuhgeddaboudit!! It was a toughie to fly even in perfect conditions. Most planes flown by most countries were more on the tough to master side. Training was needed but not always avaialable in the latter stages of the conflict, except for the US and Britain.

I often wonder how many pilots were killed in accidents not related to combat, both during training and after training?? Probably thousands of pilots died with no shots being fired at them. I once was preparing for a routine flight in a Cessna 172 and I had somehow missed the place on the checklist where you are supposed to check the elevator trim. It had apparently been left in extreme up trim from the previous landing. Needless to say my rotation was interesting and the plane immediately nosed up severely. But I was fast enough to push on the yoke and get it in check. But the stall horn had already been sounding for three seconds before I got the airspeed up to norms. This particular 172 had a STOL kit installed on the wings and sometimes I think had it been a normal 172, I might not be here now. And that was no warplane. You need to be sharp to fly or you will die. I was not sharp that time but mostly lucky.

SeaFireLIV
02-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Training was very important since not all planes in the time period were easy to fly. There is a tremendous difference as to the difficulty levels of learning to handle various warplanes in WWI and WWII!! A good example in WWI were planes like the Fokker DVII and the Sopwith Camel. The Fokker was so easy to fly they could have trained little girls to effectively fight in it, but the Sopwith was so difficult it killed many experienced pilots the first they even tried to take off in it!! In most cases though, most combat aircraft in both wars were difficult to master and that's not something that we experience in the IL2 series, where all the simulated aircraft are extremely easy to fly. In WWII, by far most fighters and bombers were hard to learn to fly and hard to continue to fly without killing yourself in non-combat, let alone combat. There were notable exceptions like the Japanese KI-100. But even planes like the P-40 and the Hurricane were handfuls to fly ( notice in the game they are both super easy ). And the B-26 Marauder? Fuhgeddaboudit!! It was a toughie to fly even in perfect conditions. Most planes flown by most countries were more on the tough to master side. Training was needed but not always avaialable in the latter stages of the conflict, except for the US and Britain.

I often wonder how many pilots were killed in accidents not related to combat, both during training and after training?? Probably thousands of pilots died with no shots being fired at them. I once was preparing for a routine flight in a Cessna 172 and I had somehow missed the place on the checklist where you are supposed to check the elevator trim. It had apparently been left in extreme up trim from the previous landing. Needless to say my rotation was interesting and the plane immediately nosed up severely. But I was fast enough to push on the yoke and get it in check. But the stall horn had already been sounding for three seconds before I got the airspeed up to norms. This particular 172 had a STOL kit installed on the wings and sometimes I think had it been a normal 172, I might not be here now. And that was no warplane. You need to be sharp to fly or you will die. I was not sharp that time but mostly lucky.

I agree in most part. I do sometimes think that as hard as it is to learn IL2, it still seems not realistic enough. I know for one that things like take off is simplified... press `I` just cannot be real. BOBwov shows a more realistic takeoff procedeure (which i`ve memorised now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Your example about real-life trim is interesting though as i`ve had this happen in IL2. I have my trim on a slider (yes, yes) and sometimes I leave it in the down position or up position. In a new flight, my p39 kept riding up on its rear wheels while trying to take off! In another example I couldn`t take off cos the plane simply stayed on the ground causing much consternation!

So IL2 is pretty realistic in some things while not in some others.

slipBall
02-17-2008, 12:03 PM
MB_Avro_UK your thread titles always remind me of school...are you by chance a teacher, or professor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
02-17-2008, 01:20 PM
I have read the interviews of a few Russian Aces and they were not short of training, even
ones who did not enter service until 1941.

The British got squeezed HARD during the BoB and did rush new pilots in for a short time.

The Germans got bled before the end of WWII and did send in pilots with even less training.

I haven't seen evidence of any other nation having done so, but that doesn't mean there is none.

MB_Avro_UK
02-17-2008, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
MB_Avro_UK your thread titles always remind me of school...are you by chance a teacher, or professor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Err..I'll get back to you on that one one if I may.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
02-17-2008, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I have read the interviews of a few Russian Aces and they were not short of training, even
ones who did not enter service until 1941.

The British got squeezed HARD during the BoB and did rush new pilots in for a short time.

The Germans got bled before the end of WWII and did send in pilots with even less training.

I haven't seen evidence of any other nation having done so, but that doesn't mean there is none.

The old hand Sov pilots had training, but the mass of the Sov pilots were in the process of being trained in 1941, as was the entire Sov military. Why? Because training had been disrupted for years by Stalin's extermination of the leadership of the Sov military. Thus, by 1941, he had to promote thousands of officers above their training, leadership ability, and capability to fill the gaps in the command ranks. Thus, in June 1941, everybody was learning their jobs, and the Germans slammed them at this very delicate phase. Actually, this was why Hitler was hellbent on striking in 1941---he and the Wehrmacht leadership wanted to smash the Sovs before they had trained up, and before they had incorporated new equipment. Thus, the Sovs went to war with largely incapable officers who did not know how to operate at their level of command = DISASTER.

MB_Avro_UK
02-17-2008, 08:16 PM
Hi all,

There's a true account of an RAF pilot joining a
a Spitfire Squadron straight from training in the Battle of Britain with no experience of flying a Spitfire.

He survived but most in the same situation did not.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
02-17-2008, 09:44 PM
In DEATH TRAPS, about the Sherman tank in WWII, the author, a WWII divisional maintenance officer in a U.S. armored division, provided many examples of desperation moves to fill gaps due to manpower shortages in trained tank crews. Sometimes five-man Shermans were sent into action with two-man crews (!), and other times soldiers with no training in tanks were press-ganged into tank crews and given a brief (like a matter of minutes) instruction and sent into action (yes, I know, we think this only happened in the Soviet army, not in the winter of 1944-45 in the U.S. Army).

The classic is filling command positions with untrained or incapable officers due to attrition or shortages. As demonstrated in the novel A PIECE OF CAKE, a dumb officer (Squadron-Leader Rex) can kill off a squadron of highly-trained pilots with one mistake. When the case involves a very high level officer, like Stevenson AOC of 2 Group in 1941, who unimaginatively slaughtered dozens of Blenheim IV aircrews in ill-considered operations using stale tactics, the damage can be incalculable.

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2008, 09:35 AM
Yes, people like to point to the Soviets for some stupid errors, but it`s interesting to see similar errors elsewhere. that`s the confusion/desperation of war, I guess. Good stuff all.