[Oxby R]

Gentlemen – just a couple of thoughts. I think someone needs to highlight the fact that concepts like 'performance' and 'operational effectiveness' can be measured in ways other than simplistic one-on-one 'kills'. Seems many people are afflicted by this unhealthy interest in focussing on the 'micro' picture - i.e. the ‘kills’ made exclusively by individual fighter pilots - whilst often negating the immense contribution (and courage) of many other types of aircrew working together in teams. The bomber crews in particular - for my money I think deserve more exposure. They endured a far riskier existence and a higher chop rate at all stages of the war. And how many of them are remembered as heroes - aside of the Dambusters, I mean ?

For myself I can only speak about the nightfighter war with any authority. Here it was not so much a case of who was the better pilot - or even who was the more skilful flier. It was more complex than that. The aerial war at night used new technology, and radar of course to detect and locate the enemy. It became a case of who could creep up on whom without being detected and position oneself in such a way to be able to deliver a sudden and devastating blow. Less a case of chivalry - more a case of 'legitimate murder'. To be successful required good AI equipment, an aircraft with decent cannon - and a flight crew prepared to work together. Here it was again usually the teamwork, communication and co-operation between pilot and nav/rad and GCI which produced results. But for public consumption - it's just not that sexy a story, is it ? Neither is all this talk of 'top scoring pilots' and whether the figures stack up. It's kid's stuff really. Of course some of the figures will have been ‘adjusted’ upwards for reasons of propaganda - such as the perceived need to produce a hero on the home front when the war was progressing badly. People will always need to have something to believe in particularly when things all around seem to be falling apart. So, from a completely apolitical & neutral stance, I can quite understand why the Nazi regime needing to produce heroes in the same way as Britain needed nightfighter heroes such as John Cunningham in 1941. But gentlemen, contrary to rumour Cunningham’s eyesight was not improved substantially by eating vast quantities of carrots. Nor was he personally responsible for the little fabrication about carrots enhancing night vision– no, that was down to the British Government. Perfectly harmless you might say...

What is not perfectly harmless is a discussion which centres on ‘overstated or exaggerated kills’. What’s the point ? Doesn’t it make you feel just a little uncomfortable, even if they were ‘the enemy’ at that time ? Why should that be, I wonder? Maybe we feel uncomfortable with this, because most of the individuals involved are no longer with us - and are not here to answer for themselves. Whatever side they fought on, maybe it’s a little late in the day to point fingers, and destroy reputations of individuals when the regime they fought for may have played a significant role in the production of that so-called ‘war hero’ anyway.

Again, just my two pennith ! atb richard