|
Human Aspects
Nick,
I certainly agree with you that operational aspects are (or should be) the focus of any aircraft history. Although my education and initial work experience is aeronautical engineering, my eyes glaze over when reading long, rambling technical descriptions of WWII (or any) aircraft.
Any time I see paragraph starting with…
“The Schultz SKD-4U/GA was a semi-monocoque stressed-skin monoplane….” I immediately go to the next section. When discussing the technical aspects of aircraft design I am more interested in why certain features were, or were not, incorporated. Since no military aircraft was designed to be mediocre, each design team was constantly making decisions that affect the ultimate usefulness of the resulting airplane. That, to, is a human story.
And, as you imply, it is how the airplane was used, that fascinates most of us. The Martin-Baker MB-5 might have been the best piston-engined aircraft ever, but who cares.
The Ju-87 was obsolescent soon after entering service, but the fact that it continued to give valuable service until the end of the war deserves more coverage than it has been given.
Even the “tank-busting” career, I believe, hasn’t been definitively treated. Most discussions seem to be a re-hash of Rudel’s “Stuka Pilot”. A thorough discussion of tactics, weapons, doctrine and operations would be most welcome.
You book on NSG-9 is one of the best “Operational” books in my library. As with all “good books” it uncovers new ground, rather than rehashing an often told story. While fighters get the headlines, these flyers went about their duties in dangerous and demanding ops while flying obsolescent aircraft. It is a human story. And as you point out, any aircraft history ultimately must be a human story, whether the subject is design or operations.
|