Originally Posted by Anvilfolk (Post 295055)

I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.

Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.

Thanks for any further info!

Originally Posted by No1 Cheese (Post 295057)

Lonely Warrior is a must!!!
Sternjaeger hope you dont mind me asking but whats your age and where are you from?

Cheese

Originally Posted by Dutch_851 (Post 295089)

Then neither you nor your so called historians or your close friend have read the book thoroughly enough, as it's precisely that sort of propagandist claptrap that Bungay sets out to disprove, on both sides.

Nor would any Englishman, to my knowledge, end a sentence with the word 'period'. It's called a 'full stop' here.

'Periods' are something else entirely.

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK (Post 295099)

You really know how to draw attention to yourself don't you.

:rolleyes: period.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 295103)

So is Christer Bergström but he does put out good books.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 295286)

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

Originally Posted by winny (Post 295355)

The problem I found with Bungay's book was that I was very aware of him whilst reading it, if you get what I mean.

It felt a bit like a vehicle for Bungay more than a book on the BoB..

I prefer James Holland's, it's the most balanced BoB book I've read.

I do find that when Bungay's on TV I don't particularlly like him. He likes himself a lot though...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 295286)

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.



I'm 31 and live in England.



I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?



I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..



Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 295350)

Some destroyers and light cruisers is not the RN Fleet. There was no need to bring in the big guns, the BBs. The LW certainly didn't have naval night fighting capability.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 295386)

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393



That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter (Post 295386)

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393

That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger (Post 295380)

it is all relative, you have to bear in mind that losing and replacing a battleship is not as replacing a tank. The risk of losing so much tonnage of battleship to sink landing crafts or motorboats would have been high.

The biggest disadvantage with the use of the Navy is that you're putting a lot at stake, and the Luftwaffe would have surely quickly found a way to do night operations. Plus let's not forget that the Kriegsmarine could have poured in the soup some of their U-Boote to make things more thrilling at night.. it could have gone awfully different.



Exactly, just like the Battle of Britain, but it was the Germans who made the mistakes this time.