Actually, the problem was convinceing the WWI pilots that the tactics they had used were still valid. They had become convinced by theory that fighters were too fast to fight each other by the late 30s (never mind the fact that they were doing it in Spain and China) as well as the 'bomber will always get thru' mantra. They saw the Spitfires and Hurricanes as purely bomber destroyers and the tactics were based on that. In several ways the US was actually ahead of the RAF at this point. The gunnery training was much better. The USAAC was at least teaching pursuit curves and the USN was actually training pilots in defelction shooting -- something neither the Germans or Japanese bothered with.

the spainish civil war actually confirmed that the bomber could get though, the germans were using ju52 as bombers and still managed to hit the targets they choose. it did show that if intercepted by fighters a bomber was a sitting target, however both the us and britain ingnored taht as they had fast bombers that would out pace the fighter(that didnt happen In reality) the US was still teaching formation flying to fighter pilots in 1940, it was a combination of ex eagle squadron, ex flying tigers and raf pilots that changed the way the airforce prepaired for war, the navy was different they did teach a lot of fighter tactics and did train in gunnery odly enough so did the fleet air arm, it seem that only the main airforces of the west failed to change with the times. and the IJN whilst not deafeated had lost a large proportion of its best well before the p38 arrived

who were using upto date tactics in late 30s china?

So, given that the RAF's tactics were foxtrot alfa all use, suggesting the use of a fighter that requires good tactics to survive, much less be successful, is a BF idea. No?

In both China and Spain, relatively modern fighters were fighting fighters, in spite of theorys to the contrary, which is what I was talking about at the time. As of the spring of '43 the Fighter Command was still using tight formations. They just replace a string of three plane vics with a string of four plane flights. Channault and the AVG did know what they were doing (as a result of Chennault's experience), although the various Brit and Commonwealth air units in the far east were still using the old non-tactics. And considering what the FAA was flying for fighters, they needed every advantage that they could get. When they split off from the RAF they were left really holding a sack of s**t.

still at a loss as to to who was flying "modern fighters" in china in the late 30s! the finger four formation was the standard raf fromation from 41, no other formation flying was taught. the finger four is regarded as the optimum formation as it is a lead/wingman lead element with a lead/wingman support and is the standard formation even today.

There were several a/c used in China in the 300 mph range, including the Polikarpov I16, the Hawk 75 and the Nakajima Ki27. REcalling that at the time, much of the RAF was still flying Gladiators. It's more than the number of a/c in the flight, its how they are spaced. The RAF was flying four a/c flights virtually wing-tip to wing-tip with the flights stacked tightly one behind the other. This is very little better than the infamous 'bunch of bananas' formation of four tight 3-plane vics one behind the other. A proper finger-four places the a/c of the flight about 100-200 yards apart, and the flights in a loose line abrest formation at slightly staggered altitudes. What the RAF was using was a rediculously tight version of the now long-obsolete 'welded wing' version of the four plane flight. This has long been replaced with the 'loose deuce' style of the formation which is far more effective tactically.

The biography page for Squadron Leader Percival Stanley "Stan" Turner states "The other innovation was the implementation of the finger four technique, identical to what the Germans were using at the time." He was part of Baders wing and this statement refers to his operations in June 1941. http://www.constable.ca/turner.html

The trouble was that, beyond the four a/c flight, they were not identical. Read the book ZEMKE'S WOLFPACK by Roger Freeman based on interviews with Zemke. The advice given the US fighter units arriving in UK in the spring of '43 by RAF Fighter Command pilots used the finger-four, but still involved formations that were much too tight to be effective. The Americans quickly found that out, and copied the actual German formations which were as I described earlier, so much more widely spaced that they weren't really formations at all.

From Robert Stanford Tucks biography. He was covering the Dunkirk evacuation as acting Squadron leader after his predecessor had been shot down the day before. "The next day, Tuck led 92 Squadron on patrol near Dunkirk. Instead of bunching his Spitfires in tight formation, he opened up the formation until the planes were 200 feet apart." That's not what I call a tight formation!.