Quote:
Originally Posted by swift
Your problem, AoA, is that you only accept results that are in accordance with your philosophy.
|
Not true
I am willing to accept anything, as I noted, I have an open mind on this..
As a mater of fact, 20 years ago I was making the same argument your making now!
But over the past 20 years I have come to the conclusion that it can not be done (read I and others tried it)!
As noted, I wish someone could prove me wrong on this!
So, who knows, maybe you are the one who can do it?
But up to now you have not provided anything to elevate the concerns I have brought up!
To re-cap, I have brought up two concerns (two of many, but the two I find to be the most important)
1) anecdotical evidence is typically, if not always a one sided story
2) anecdotical evidence is written by those who lived to write about it
For Examples..
WRT item 1) You will be hard pressed to find an after actions report that has input from both the axis and allied pilot with regards to the encounter (say dog fight).
WRT item 2) Using your example of 1,000 Spitfires saying they could out turn a 109, you don't know how many Spitfire pilots were shot down trying to turn with a 109.
Explain to me how you account for these two items in your statistical analysis and than maybe I can start to see it from your point of view..
Because you just saying 'this method worked' wrt IL-2 explains nothing..
And has that used car salesman "trust me" feel to it..
Better yet, give us an example of how you applied this method in IL-2!!
Just one!
Than maybe I can see it from your point of view?