Why would you want an unarmed 2 seat low performance trainer on the front line? Your statement about each trainer was one fewer aircraft on the front was probably the stupidest thing I'll hear today. Unless I hear one of our politicians speaking...,(reply>), @Neil of Longbeck <br>The Link Trainer cut down the amount of time each pilot in training needed in a real plane enough that it was significantly cheaper overall. Remember that the fuel was a really scarce resource in some of the countries where this was used during WW2.,(reply>), @viveladecadence but the link trainer couldn't replace trainer aircraft. It had limited capabilities that only a real aircraft can reproduce. While you can use the Link trainer for instrument flying, you can't use it for combat training, which would need at least 2 aircraft not on the front line.,(reply>), @Neil of Longbeck <br>At the end of the day, you have finite resources to allocate to the fighter planes and the training planes. It probably wasn’t a simple one-to-one equivalence, but you only have so much plane fuel, so many aircraft mechanics, so many runways and so on.,(reply>)," Tom said at <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJAYZgOZS08&amp;t=2m54s"">2:54</a>: "Every plane that was used for instruction was a plane not in the air on the front lines"", which means because of this simulator (which was used in great numbers), they needed fewer planes for instruction/training and therefore could get more planes to the front lines.,(reply>), @Ciaran Longmuir all aircraft require the same things to operate. BUT you don't put trainer aircraft on the front line.