Well, I haven't heard anything lately that Operation Sealion is about to be re-activated. I think we can safely conclude that it's been cancelled. The Brits won, the Germans lost.

Given your arguments about semantics etc. don't you think it's possible that 'indefinite hold' was the German way of spinning 'abandoned'.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you're conducting a war, you would try to avoid using phrases like 'give up' and 'couldn't win' or 'failed'.

"Indefinite hold" sounds like a nice way to put "Can't do it".

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

Ah yes, I did predict eventually I would get slammed as a Union flag waving looney by you.

Persecution wasn't mentioned until you mentioned it with reference to Alan Turing. Again, Alan Turing's case is not a cliche, but your mentioning it in order to deviate the thread from its intention in order to provide a platform for your opportunity to equate Allied and particularly British morality with Nazi morality is very much a cliche. It's very old and tired, what's more.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...chdrama8jm.gif

PS, hi Manu:)

Hello mate! :-D

I see you're doing a great job in the Marianas' campaign! !S!

True, I guess we should have at least given them a sporting chance, it really wasn't cricket we were playing.

around 1,500 British/allied aircrew killed and you failed to provide that option in your argument, do you think we were hiding behind a magic force fileld here? you think we cheated?

it's not all about the 110


and the Germans had the advantage of :

years of massing a war machine they had been secretly developing, so nobody else was prepared because they had a more peacefull vision of the future, a numerical advantage is quite significant, the Germans found that out against the Russians, the channel did not cancel that advantage out.

Quite a bit of combat experience gained not only from the outbreak of war but also the combat experience gained by fighting for their fellow fashists in Spain, the sole purpouse of which was to gain an advantage in their sinister plans for war in europe.

a pretty well uninterrupted supply line over land.

Yeah its been really good fun, thanks for the invite, !S!

Evening all.

Ok, to start I'm a loosely patriotic Brit but am well versed in this countries Pros & Cons, throughout history and at present - I also regard myself as being able to evaluate an argument on it's merit and as such re-evaluate my position.

My first point is this - Battles are more often lost than won.

To clarify, it's usually the side that makes fewest mistakes that wins. That criteria alone would lean us towards a German 'loss'.

However, air battles are not land battles - no territory is gained or lost, and though one side may lose more than another in numbers, their logistical foundation may be better able to absorp the losses and keep them in the fight. So you can't always trust the victory tally either.

Air Superiority is a vague term to actually define and even harder to quantify; at what exact moment can you say empirically that you have air superiority? And you are right to argue semantically about it. It's rather more an art of perception than of accountable fact.

As such I would propose that any aerial battle is won in part by the greater attrition of the enemies numbers, but also by the meeting of your own objectives with as few losses as possible and the clear perception (at the present time of battle) of enemies reluctance or inability to decisively and regularly meet you in combat.

In all cases I suggest that presents a German loss.

Turn these citeria upon the RAF during the 1941-42 Cross Channel air battles and you see a similar outcome, without the poor logistical support that the Luftwaffe faced during the BoB. In fact although the RAF 'lost' the Cross Channel campaign in the early years by learning the lessons and braving the losses they eventually turn the tables through '43 into '44 with the assistance of the USAAF because they had the political desire to stay in the fight and most importantly the economies to support the action.

Similarly Malta. Who won the air war there? Arguably at any time the Luftwaffe was offensive over the island they quickly made things incredibly difficult for the RAF. However, the will to commit decisively was consistently inconsistent, allowing the RAF to build forces and prevent the Axis powers from gaining complete domination.

The will to fight the attrition battle on all of these occasions was knocked out of the Luftwaffe and the German high command in particular - their eyes were always elsewhere, tryng to conserve forces for future offensives or crisis spots in all off the presented campaigns.

I present to you that the Germans lost the battle of Britain because battles are more often lost than won - that the Luftwaffe made more mistakes: they suffered from vague objectives that changed at a crucial juncture because of faulty intelligence - and I suspect no small measure of inflated self worth - but most importantly a lack of commitment in terms of economic and logistical infrastructure and in willingness to focus to the cause at hand. They did not meet their objectives; they suffered heavy losses that they could not keep pace with. The RAF met theirs whilst suffering losses and even further, it grew stronger in numbers whilst doing so.

These criteria point to a German loss, and ergo, a British win for me.

Ehi what's wrong with you? :-|

Did Germans had that force field? Did they never died in their cockpits?
I didn't put the option since there was not a reason... dead is dead over any territory.

What's about then? The 110 was the only one fighter who could CAP over England because of his range. The 109s were better fighters but not could provide air superiority alone. With an automomy of 15 minutes over London they could not do very much... what it they went to battle using droptanks to increase their autonomy?

They could "protect" the bombers staying directly over english airbases, attacking the Spits/Hurries during their path for the bomber stream. This is air superiority.

Germany made a mistake when started the battle with this kind of equipment (and we can say the same about Stukas, great CAS machine who NEED air superiority to survive)

They are responsible for that advantage... British and French were responsible for they lack of weapons... They could have prepared themself long before the war.

Instead the Channel is responsable for itself alone... the Germans have lost so much because of it.

So, I repeat my opinion: UK won the battle, of course, but more because Nazis' stupidity than for allied pilots' skill and machines.

I hope we'll fight each other again in campaign with shorter missions... 3 hours are too much for me :-(