Randy Haskin wrote:
This is a very bizarre question to ask.
On a website devoted to obsessive details on obsolete military junk? Where's the 'normal' baseline? - Waay over there...
Randy Haskin wrote:
No offense to anyone here, but there are very few people who participate on WIX who have actually witnessed combat with their own eyes. I'd argue that it is impossible to be able to judge what is realistic and what is not without this baseline to judge from.
The history of humanity is in part based on a mix of trying to make other experiences 'real' to a non-participant and tall tales told by slayers of Dragons (Betties, and MiGs...)

From Toko-Ri back to Beowulf.
I agree there's a difference between
you being the vulnerable pink thing at risk and just 'pretending' or observing a recreation, but let's not play the 'you have to be there' card; participants are not often the best
communicators of the story, or even what it's like. That's one reason for the war artist's programmes.
No one participant's experience of a battle is a meaningful understanding of the whole thing - given that, should we abandon trying and understand it from the strategic, tactical and personal points-of-view? I don't think so. I'm sure while there's differences in our backgrounds, our different explanations of combat in, say 1916, would be as valid; yours from a combat pilot's understanding, mine from an amateur historian's. Both of us can spot where Nieuports "can't do that"...
IMHO, of course...