"Sure, you would lose more bombers without fighters, but, flying in formation, you could get the job done"
About this Quote
The intent feels twofold. On the surface, it’s an argument for feasibility: even without fighter protection, a disciplined system can still deliver results. Underneath, it’s a defense of doctrine and institutional momentum. “Flying in formation” isn’t just a tactic; it’s a belief that organization and technology can substitute for the messy unpredictability of combat. The phrase “get the job done” is tellingly vague, as if destruction at a distance is just another deliverable.
Context matters because debates over strategic bombing in the mid-20th century weren’t only about battlefield outcomes; they were about budgets, prestige, and the promise that airpower could win wars efficiently. Symington, who moved between business and government power circles, speaks in a register that treats loss as a cost center and success as throughput. The subtext is the moral anesthetic of bureaucracy: if the plan is coherent and the output is achieved, the blood price becomes a tolerable variable rather than the central fact.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
| Cite |
Citation Formats
APA Style (7th ed.)
Symington, Stuart. (2026, January 16). Sure, you would lose more bombers without fighters, but, flying in formation, you could get the job done. FixQuotes. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/sure-you-would-lose-more-bombers-without-fighters-92111/
Chicago Style
Symington, Stuart. "Sure, you would lose more bombers without fighters, but, flying in formation, you could get the job done." FixQuotes. January 16, 2026. https://fixquotes.com/quotes/sure-you-would-lose-more-bombers-without-fighters-92111/.
MLA Style (9th ed.)
"Sure, you would lose more bombers without fighters, but, flying in formation, you could get the job done." FixQuotes, 16 Jan. 2026, https://fixquotes.com/quotes/sure-you-would-lose-more-bombers-without-fighters-92111/. Accessed 12 Feb. 2026.







