Thread: Licensed Simoun
View Single Post
Old 2006-08-03, 23:06   Link #1139
Iskandar Taib
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy
Rechecking some references, I get the impression that 18 was about the usual number, give or take, and the difference between a flying strength of 12 and 16 was actually more about attitudes than aircraft. A USAAF squadron in the Med would use 12 aircraft on a normal mission and 16 on a maximum effort, whereas the USAAF in the Pacific (in keeping with the "patchwork" nature of that campaign) put up everything that was serviceable, 16 being considered an ideal rather than a "must-have."
The USAAF fighter wings (squadrons) in Europe used 16. By 1942 everyone had adopted the German "rotte" and "schwarm", so 16 made sense. The RAF stayed with 12, though I wonder how they dealt with three sections of four when the squadron was, on the ground, oraginized into two flights. I suppose the third section might have two pilots from each flight. Back when there were four sections of three it was simpler. Not sure how the Navy organized its squadrons, either, or the Germans, for that matter. (I found it amusing that, at least on the Eastern Front, the Luftwaffe's policy was that the leader in a pair was the one with the greater number of victories, so you often had sergeants leading officers.)

Quote:
Perhaps, but it's also worth bearing in mind that prepositioning the replacements at the front line is wasteful of fuel and ferry pilots' time, if losses occur in a different pattern than expected, and also exposes the spare aircraft to greater risk of being destroyed on the ground. The policy would make sense, though, if heavy losses were anticipated or there were more than enough extra airframes to go around.
If the squadron weren't flying (and being engaged) every day, then it would be OK to have just enough pilots to put up a full strength squadron. However, in a non-stop situation, it makes sense to have more pilots than it takes to put up a full strength squadron. That way, the pilots get some time to rest and if someone gets shot down, the squadron can still be at full strength the very next sortie.

Quote:
One thing that shocked me was the apparent lack of interest in salvaging the crew from downed Simoun. When Chor Tempest encountered the badly shot-up Simoun in episode 1, I'd expected them to at least follow it down to watch the crash-landing and check for survivors, if not actually detach someone to retrieve them. It's interesting that the battle-hardened Aeru turned out to care more about such things than any of the Chor's original, all-miko complement did.
Yeah, that surprised me, as well, that they didn't wait to see what happened, though it's possible they knew the remaining crew member was going to be OK, if the Simoun can land automatically. I suppose the actual recovery crews would be ground-based. So far we haven't seen any "transport Simoun" or "work Simoun" (other than those things they used in Episode 11), so I don't know how they do the recovery operations. Come to think of it, I haven't seen roads, or the equivalent of trucks or cars, either.
Iskandar Taib is offline   Reply With Quote