[dfwgator]

Polish RAF pilots had lower quality planes than their British counterparts during the Battle of Britain, but had a higher kill ratio. It’s the pilot, not the plane.

[Navy Patriot]

It’s the pilot, not the plane.

It’s the pilot, the training and the experience, not the plane.

[Nowhere Man]

Polish RAF pilots had lower quality planes than their British counterparts during the Battle of Britain, but had a higher kill ratio. It’s the pilot, not the plane.

True. I often said that if I could magically beam over 1 million M1 Garands and Carbines, 50,000 bazookas and 5000 M48/M60/Centurion tanks to the Ukraine to fight the Russian, I'd do it. I subscribe to the rule of "there is no such thing as an obsolete weapon, only obsolete thinking," it takes the people behind them to use them and find ways to turn things to their advantage plus it takes the desire and rage as well.

[Paul R.]

Yes, I remember an account from “Thunderbolt” by US ace Robert S. Johnson: The Polish pilots were considered slightly crazy, but could make those P-47’s do things the designers said they could not do.

[tcrlaf]

“Polish RAF pilots had lower quality planes than their British counterparts during the Battle of Britain, but had a higher kill ratio. It’s the pilot, not the plane.”

That was 73 years ago. This is now. Ever seen an F-22?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Check Google or elsewhere before I do. The Poles flew either Hurricanes or Spitfires, as well as what they had from their original Polish Air Force (perhaps P 39 Aercobras).

I’ll get back here with some infor on this issue.

[LevinFan]

“It’s the pilot, not the plane.”

Yes and no. There is still only so much a pilot can do to overcome the tech disadvantage. Otherwise one could claim a WWI biplane is the equal of an F-22.

The technology is useless without the pilot, but that doesn’t make the pilot the only consideration.

The expression “It’s the pilot, not the plane.” makes a great movie line. But movie war tactics are a poor way to go to real war.