Now you are entitled to your opinion but I have the fact do not agree with that opinion. In sort you expressed an opinion I provided theory based on documented facts.
So where do you think I'm getting this from? Just pulling it out of the air? The british operational research sections discovered that their own pilots were heavily exaggerating their on-ground kill counts. Sometimes even saying that they killed more vehicles than were even present in an engagement
If you disagree with the facts I have pointed out feel free to do so but I have not interest in being involved in "forum fight " with people who disagree with me as person and use ad hominem arguments.
Where do you see me using ad hominem against you? I said it's your opinion (and mine, respectively) because neither one of us was there, and historians themselves disagree about this exact topic. Don't lump other people's comments against you in with mine
Thisarticle has some of what I'm talking about. I can't find my history of ww2 aircraft book which mentioned other pieces including Britain's white panther test where pilots struggled to hit a disabled panther that was painted bright white and left out in the open. And they had no AA to worry about
The article doesn't at all suggest that it was impossible, and neither am I. But it was way more difficult than pilots acted. Rudel was a "war hero" for a reason. Even though it was exaggerated, his feats were incredibly impressive and far from the norm
If you want to continue this, DM me. We have both derailed this thread enough
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
