Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beaman
OK, guys, let's cool the tone of th rhetoric here! Stop the personal characterizations and stick to dive-bombing issues. Otherwise, I'll lock this thread.
Also, we've gotten WAY off base with the subject matter which is the place of the P-39 in history. Let's stick to that.
If you want a separate thread on dive bombing, set it up in the WWII in General forum. and, be cool!  |
Yes and no, John.
Yes, let's stay cool, and avoid personal characterizations. But no, we have not gotten off base with the P-39's place in history.
Please note what's really going on here.
There are greater issues here than dive bombing and the P-39, and these greater issues determine the P-39's place in history.
We're talking trees and wood. The place of the P-39 tree is determined in some degree by the place of the VVS wood in history.
And discussing that brings into question the validity of the consensus view of the WWII air war. The Pe-2 is related to the P-39 and Il-2 in that all three types of aircraft were rejected by the RAF/USAAF, and rejected with feeling. Any arguments made in their favour come up against this RAF/USAAF weltanschauung. And putting that in doubt is like questioning motherhood and apple pie; the person doing it must be a troll, which is what I have been accused of.
It's a pity there are no Russian contributors. Then we wouldn't be arguing over basic facts about the Pe-2, which was one of WWII's most successful aircraft designs. We've had the same disagreements with the P-39 and Il-2. But that's indicative of the wider problem. A Russian contributor might also stand up for the importance of effective tactical aircraft and the general irrelevance of strategic aircraft to victory in WWII.
The RAF/USAAF worldview has quasi cult status. Many have internalised it. A statement that the RAF/USAAF got it wrong tends to produce howls of outrage, charges of trolling, and counter-charges about Russian inhumanity and the loss rate of the Il-2. That says buckets about those who obviously have a lot invested. But having emotion involved is not conducive to rational debate.
Tony