I think csThor is being a bit too negative towards MP. I've only ever flown in a couple of full switch servers back when we didn't have CoD yet, but i didn't see so much of a problem with player attitude.
Yes, it exists to a certain degree and yes, some times concessions have to be made to get a level playing field for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's completely ahistorical. I think csThor just had some bad luck and happened to encounter more of it than i did
On the other hand, there are also MP fans who are too dismissive of the SP aspect and i disagree with them as well.
The way i see it is very simple:
SP is for getting a realistic depiction of a theater of operations and realistic behavioral patterns of air forces and pilots on a strategic and tactical level, for example RAF flying in Vic formation early on in the battle or Luftwaffe ignoring the airfields and going after London later on. It's for things like orders of battle, stations/squadron placement and mission profiles.
MP is for getting a realistic depiction of pilot behavior within the actual combat engagement. It's for getting a believable set of responses by the guy in front of your guns.
The only way to successfully merge the positive points of both is to fly in a dynamic online campaign with players that will agree to do things like they were done back then even if it gives them a disadvantage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but good luck maintaining that on a large enough scale to have MP qualify as historically accurate in the majority of cases.
A significant number of people do fly that way in online wars but another significant number fly the way Danelov described and as such, i can't just ignore the statistic and claim MP is accurate by default. MP is as accurate as the players themselves and the mission designer/server host want it to be, in fact, even if the mission designer does set out to do things a certain way it still doesn't work out if the players don't go along with it.
That's the main point csThor is arguing and in that he is entirely correct: the AI will shut up and do as its told within the constraints of its ability, while a human player will do what it takes to win. This is what makes human vs human competition more thrilling but at the same time it results in the RAF not flying in Vic formation ever and the Luftwaffe never changing their targets and keep hammering the airfields: we get believable piloting while the battle/operations in the theater play out in a way completely different to history.
I still like it because a properly orchestrated MP event is the ultimate "what-if time machine" available with today's technology, but it's a far stretch calling it a recreation of the actual battle.
It's a recreation of the means used to wage the battle and not the battle itself, because the means end up getting used in a different manner 99% of the time.
I like both SP and MP because they are different, but neither one can give 100% of what's needed in 100% of the cases to be considered the pinnacle of realism. And this is why i don't only consider them equally important (each one tends to complete what's missing from the other one), but i also like to alternate between the two.