[caldrail]

I think if you were to say to the likes of Bader and Milan, Tuck and many others, don't worry about convergence sir, Flight will just follow doctrine and set it to the official convergence as required by regulations, well, you'd have the biggest rocket up your arse you could ever imagine!

That's an assumption. More likely they'd have a quiet word with well intended advice if they thought I was wrong. But then... Bader, Milan, amnd Tuck never mentioned convergence at all. Nor did any other allied pilot in WW2. Nor did any of their enemies. I challenge you to find one pilot who discusses it in their memoirs. Good luck

These people ensured that new changes were implimented because their pilots lives were at stake, let alone the need to absolutely make sure because if they didn't, those people with black crosses on their aircraft would win the battle with the possible outcome of invasion!

You quoted Bader. I seem to remember he was very keen on retaining the wisdom gathered by WW1 pilots and lectured his canadian pilots on first meeting them.

You just have to read a few biographies and unit histories to realise that this was a time of major change in the RAF, that was being led by influential pilots that were doing the fighting.. just read Paul Ritchie's book for instance that clearly shows that pilots were making changes to their airframes and armaments that were clearly forbidden by higher formation, but they did them anyway, as they were the people fighting and dying, and not the desk wallahs in Whitehall flying bleedin desks.. and this was in France, early on in the war before the Battle of Britain!

No, that's an exaggeration. Most pilots were simply not sufficiently informed to make these decisions.

No WW2 pilot strode up to a mechanic and siad "I say old bean, adjust the left aileron tab 0.025" upward will you? Oh and by the way, if you make a new ammo chute for the wing cannoms that looks like this... see? I drew this diagram?... Our guns will fire much better. See to it, there's a good chap."

It simply didn't happen. The forward thinking in technical details was from the designers of the aircraft, not the users, although there were occaisions when the designers made alterations to production specs in the light of combat experience which amounted to something more like "Your b**** aeroplane can't fly fast enough!"

Some leaders of the time were bullish. So? The British often are, I'm no different. That doesn't mean I can walk up to a Cessna at an airfield and suggest to the flying club that it would fly better with half a degree more washout.

Can we show a bit more realism about what these aces achieved in the war? Bader got his way because he was a right pushy pain the backside, not because he was a gifted tactiician or engineer.

I think the gist of your rather lengthy reply, is that you lack one of, or a combination of the following, the courage, experience or tactical nous, to attack bombers.

No, that wasn't the gist of it. If I lacked the courage (despite this being a sim, and therefore non-harmful to me) I wouldn't fly such missions, though clearly I do if you some of my other posts.

Experience? Young man, I've been flying aviation sims quite possibly since before you were born. I 've flown a variety of real aircraft, some aerobatic, I've sat in mock dogfights flown over the Severn Channel, I've spoken to world war two veterans - and for that matter, my flying instructor had been a Mosquito pilot with the Pathfinders and flew throughout the length of the war. The Chief Flying Instructor of my flying club had been a display pilot, had flown replicas in feature films, and with experience hands-on of flying Sptfires.

Tactical nous? By whose standards are you making that inference? Your own? What goes on in a sim doesn't always reflect the reality of it. There's no seat of the pants feel, there's no smell, there's no real meaningful interaction apart from a bunch of yougsters who think they know everything. The difference is - I know I don't, but then I took the trouble to find that out.