Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on June 28, 2007 at 08:58:05

In Reply to: RE: Have you analyzed the available combat air power available to the Soviet Union vs. posted by oscar on June 27, 2007 at 15:50:09

My kids can count. They can't reason. Most of the time, reasoning is more important. So here goes. The Soviet air force, at the beginning of the war, was years behind technologically. At least according to Stalin. The U.S. gave the S.U. aircraft under the Lend-lease. Those are facts. If the Soviet air force was all that, no need for Stalin's statement, and no need for loaners. Therefore, the air force was lacking. If there is no air force to speak of, there are no pilots to speak of, because, well, on what do they train? That is called reasoning.

Consequently, at the beginning of the war, the S.U. air force is not equivalent to the U.S. and Britain air force. Britain gave the Luftwaffe more than it could handle in the Battle of Britain. Remember, the Luftwaffe, at the beginning of the battle with the S.U., gave the S.U. heavy losses. That is fact. Britain's air force gave the Luftwaffe heavy losses. That is fact. Consequently, the Royal Air Force was better than the Soviet air force. That is reasoning. Same thing that tells me San Antonio is a better team than Detroit, though they never faced each other in the finals.

Both the Royal and U.S. Air forces were responsible for putting the final nails in the Luftwaffe, which is fact. Consequently, their air forces were superior to the Luftwaffe, which were also superior to the S.U. air force, which had been defeated by the Luftwaffe. Reasoning.

After the Luftwaffe were neutralized, the S.U. built a lot of planes. Fact. However, they had not many experienced pilots, because their air force was not a factor during the war, as the Luftwaffe were largely neutralized when they re-built their air force, and, to the best of my knowledge, they never fought the Japanese, so there was little combat experience. As opposed the Britain and the U.S. Reasoning.

I could likely cite the numbers of planes each side owned, but how to quantify the combined years of combat experience of their respective pilots? Flight time? Kills? Skill? You may be the same person who looks at the U.S. News and World Report's edition on colleges, finds the college with the most volumes in the library, and concludes that is the best college. Crunching numbers are easy. Thinking is difficult because it requires real work. Get back to me when you are ready to think instead of regurgitate.

"It's all moot anyway, there wasn't a fight."

Then why are you posting?