“I would be inclined to disagree with you there Kev. The ‘Ace’ fighter pilot can be traced back to the First World War, and in that particular conflict they were definitely ‘on their own’ as such – the RFC fighter pilots were about the only numerous ‘command’ (correct me if I’m wrong please). Different war though. At that time ALL of aviation was a thing of awe-inspiring wonder. All pilots were held in some kind of appealing esteem.”
You are of course right to a point. Air to air fighting was new, and, indeed, made a striking counterpoint to the slaughter in the trenches. A press report saying “our airmen shot down six of their airmen for the loss of just two of our pilots” is bound to sound more favourable than one saying “two thousand allied soldiers were killed today but we gained thirty yards of ground.”
Cobber Kain’s success, or the successes of the pilots of Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain are not to be denigrated, least of all by me. In fact I attribute the survival of this Country to that gallant group of pilots. The fact remains that the war was going badly, the threat of invasion was real, the odds were certainly against this Country. For morale reasons the slightest hint of success was turned into a major victory. Take Dunkirk, essentially the routing of an Army which was viewed as a triumph.
Your point about bomber losses early in the war are merely comparative. The losses were not considered heavy because large numbers of aircraft were not available. Although that would be small comfort to the crews of 2 Group for instance for whom the losses were enormous.
You also talk about the ‘Ace’ pilot. It would be interesting to know how many pilots never made a single claim. I think you’d find it a considerable number. As the Fighter Command policy of leaning out progressed it became much more of a team war. Yes, there were huge melees but pilots were encouraged to fight in pairs to protect each other. You’ll find that all the great “Aces” had superbly skillful and reliable wingmen.
No-one can deny that Bomber Command’s losses were horrendous. it should be remembered that as far as the heavies are concerned each crew lost was seven men not one. I think that’s why the losses were described as percentages. An acceptable loss of six percent of a bomber force of five hundred aircraft was thirty aircraft or two hundred and ten men. Those figures do not sound “acceptable”, six percent does.
You talk about those of the Royal Navy, Merchant Navy, the Army, Gurkhas, Burma and the Fourteenth ‘Forgotten’ Army. There is arguably less glamour in the Infantryman’s slog through Europe, North Africa and the Far East. Or in the cold waters of the Arctic Circle or shark infested seas of the Pacific. What it boils down to is what it said in your last sentence, we owe our thanks to all of them, for all time.
It’s as simple as that.
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
