Melbourne city gets a lot more rain than its water supply catchments which are north and east. Makes for the anomaly of water restrictions in the pouring rain. Great place to live (I lived there 7 years 97-04)

In the bottom of “spitfire into battle” by Duncan Smith there’s an appendix called “Notes on Allied and German combat claims in Second World War”. I dont know if u all have read it, but it basically says that the divarium between the german and allied claims can be explained only by diffent systems … What I get while reading is that it seems he’s trying to justify the divarium at all costs, and cant accept that the germans had more aerial victories [and] is the number of victories so important to determine who’s better?

Alex

Further to my post above … I don’t think anyone can seriously challenge the fact that the great Luftwaffe aces had higher victory tallies than their opponents – essentially because they had more opportunity (sorties and targets). Whether this concept passes to the Luftwaffe in general I don’t know – but given their “need a witness or proof” claims system I’m inclined to support that assertion. In other words, I find Mr Duncan Smith’s argument, as reported by you, specious.

As to whether a high score makes you “better”. I’d rather argue “better” in terms of relative performance vs your peers (who have essentially the same opportunities). So who are the peers of the Luftwaffe Aces? Well, by definition your opponents do not have the same opportunities, their position is the inverse of yours at any given time or place. And we need to allow for the German preference to allow greater opportunity to their experten – the argument being that you’ll get more kills by offering the lambs to the experten than to your own learners – you can argue that one forever. So I would say the only valid comparison against which to judge the performance of a Luftwaffe ace is relative to another Luftwaffe ace. Lastly, I’d make it relative to time in the air in the same/similar environment – ie. verified claims per sortie, by front (East/West, night/day).

And IMHO the same follows for any other airforce.

cheers Don

That’s about right I reckon Snapper. What’s Malcolm up to now?

The Belgian attempt to get a Buccaneer to Belgium was by a private individual who purchased the aircraft without reallly looking into the logistics of moving it!
The reason that it was scrapped eventually was because the RAF’s patience ran out and they imposed a prohibitive parking charge per day on her.
A sad end to her but I believe her engines were also salvaged .

… sound at all familiar? :rolleyes:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37365

Is it true that part of the reason for the high German scores is that pilots included aircraft they destroyed in airfield strafing missions? Not sure if this would be enough to explain the difference.

The opposite Charley. As I understand from nmay sources, including the believable Mr Deighton, thank you Andy-in-Beds :p then the claims system was …

RAF, allow all claims including part-claims after debriefing Q&A as it is/was good for morale. This notwithstanding that in the BoB it wasn’t hard to verify over-land claims. Not sure re. strafing aircraft on the ground.

Luftwaffe … allow only claims where a second person (wingman or other) also verified the claim. If over friendly land, verify wreckage. Only in the air combat claims allowed.

USAAF … allow all claims (resulted in huge numbers of fighters being “shot down” by bomber crews o/a many gunners targeting same fighter, plus low quality german fuel in later years produced noticable smoke trails from fighters throttling-on after head on attacks at low throttle) and allow ground strafing. This latter made sense as an aircraft, whether offensive or defensive, destroyed on the ground was one less to meet in the air another day.

As to high Luftwaffe scores. The lack of rotation, ie. you fight until you are injured or killed or promoted (remember Galland?) was the key difference. Meant some pilots became very experienced and strong opponents. However don’t think that meant all pilots were old hands. The old hands got killed/injured too and new faces were always around. I have Campbell’s(?) great book on JG26 and the turnover there was astonishing. Page after page there are squadron photos of a dozen or twenty and KIA beside say 3/4 of the names. Very sobering.

Now there’s a funny thing – you say not too high Dave. I broke my back a few years ago (mountainbiking) and just last year visited Wanaka & Queenstown etc. Amongst other things visited the guys at A J Hackett in the Kawerau Gorge and asked them if I could jump. They said, yes, but see your Doc first – but also, they said the higher the better if you’ve got any concerns. It’s cos of the longer elastic – makes for a longer stretch which in turn makes for smoother and less radical deceleration. So SRP, insist you go high! AJH – 147 metres.

Hmmm … going back to the original question, which was why ‘jump’, you might be right Alex, and I think you probably are … but there are still the two possibilities
– because as you say, the seat jumps out of the way when not in use
– because it was designed for the occasional someone extra “here you go (folding out spare seat), jump on”
Slipstream’s right – not yet definitive

You always thought your father looked funny! I’m going to have a serious look at the family tree. I was told I came from a Scots/Irish/French/English grandparent mix :rolleyes: but maybe given all these pixies and walloons and things, maybe I came from a non-existent country 😮