BoB & Spitfire vs Hurricane (vs 109-ish) - an interesting viewpoint
 

Some of you may know the excellent Aviation Classics magazine that publishes every couple of months and exclusively focuses on one particular aircraft each time. Here's a viewpoint from the September 2010 issue by an ex-BBMF pilot I thought you might like to read...

http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/ne...e-or-hurricane

I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion as to why the RAF 'won' the BoB, that's perhaps more subjective than his personal Spitfire and Hurricane flying experience. I think it was also heavily influenced by two other factors, one being Goering's instructions for the 109s to tie themselves to the bombers but there's another aspect that's often overlooked. It was considered to be 'won' because the LW did not return to try again in 1941. Well, I was a guest at an Ex-Aircrew Association meeting a couple of weeks ago when Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown was giving a talk. He told us of how he was asked to interview Herman Goering during the time of the Nuremberg trials and he asked Goering "who won the Battle of Britain?". Goering claimed it was a draw. He could not continue the Battle because Hitler had ordered him to withdraw much of his strength to prepare for operation Barbarossa.

I often wonder what would have happened if the Battle had resumed?

An interesting read! It's something of a credit to 1C that as I was reading, a number of things he says about the performance characteristics between the aircraft seemed to me to also be true in the game (stall characteristics particularly).

I agree that the Battle of Britain being 'won' had a lot to do with decisions made by the Luftwaffe command. If they'd stuck to taking out the airfields and let the 109s roam hunting more often, things might have ended very differently.

+1

Agree. It truly was "a close run thing". For someone of Goering's huge ego to even concede that the BoB was "a draw" is a huge admission on his part.

Good reading, this sim covers all the details.

I don't thin "Win","Draw" or "Loose" are appropriate terms. The Axis did not meet any of their major objectives. The British did not have any major objective other than a long term goal of gaining aerial superiority which they failed to do tactically, but gained anyway on account of German strategic decisions.

If your playing chess and one side does not have any real short term objectives other than surviving and being in a position to succeed in futures games and the other player gets up and goes off to Russia half way through, it's not really a "Draw" so much as a 'non-result'.

I would disagree that they didn't have any short term objectives, they're just not as easy to quantify. Preventing something from happening, whether by the enemy's inability to do so or by their deciding not to for whatever reason, seems to be a pretty clearly met objective - namely preventing Germany from launching any kind of channel crossing invasion. Based on when they were considering launching such a thing, I think maybe that could be a pretty short term goal met.

But I do agree that 'win', 'lose' 'draw' terms aren't entirely adequate for the result. Britain could claim victory based on achieving the result of defense. If you're playing american football, and the other team fails to score during their downs that is a pretty clear victory for the defensive side. However, Germany basically did reappropriate their resources and 'give up' the attack so in another way, you definitely can argue that the battle resulted in a 'to be continued' that never really got continued.



It seems pretty clear to me that EVERYONE won as a result of Germany not defeating England, though.

I am not reading this in German, so that's a win in my book.

I think this has been discussed before.. lol

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ghlight=defeat

Did the Germans force people of the occupied countries to speak German instead of their own language?

They didn't get that far ;)

Hitler said himself that he did not want to "infringe on their individuality" of native languages, but did want German the be the language of the highest authority of government.


However saying "I'm not writing this in German" isn't really about that. ;)

Perhaps the really interesting question is, if the Luftwaffe had continued to attack airfields and radar stations, could they have achieved good enough air superiority for an invasion (I know they didn't really have enough barges in the right places and so on, but that's not my question)?

Personally, I suspect they would have struggled. In some sense the effective loss to Fighter Command of Manston as a forward base is a partial indication of what would have happened - Fighter Command would have withdrawn to bases further inland, which would have meant some loss of air superiority over the coast, but a fair degree of invulnerability.

I wonder though if the Blenheims attacking landing craft and a beachhead would have survived though!

56RAF_phoenix

Just finished reading 'Hurricane - Victor of the Battle of Britain' by Leo McKinstry. Excellent read too with lots of pilot accounts, why the Hurricane was important during this phase of the war, etc.

The Hurricanes finest hour was the BoB, by 1941 it was considered obsolete by many pilots who openly loathed flying it in campaigns such as the defence of Malta.

There's been a few games that cover this question (albeit, maybe not too sophisticatedly). I think there was a Panzer General game that let you run Operation Sea Lion.

Interesting article: a few years ago I bought a collection of back copies of Aeroplane Monthly; in February 1994 Roland Beamont wrote an article about
the Hurricane http://www.theaviationindex.com/publ...ricane-testing in which he wrote:

"The Spitfire was about 30 mph faster at all altitudes, but its Vne was the same at 400 mph IAS - though with a significant difference. A Hurricane could be "corkscrew" dived at full bore, vertically and with full aileron (still responsive to the limit) and nothing would break....In this manœuvre there was a strong likelyhood of pulling the wings off a Spitfire....The Hurricane's gun-platform stability was much superior to the Spitfire's...whose low directional damping tended to result in "hosing" rather than precision shots." He then went on to describe a mock combat he flew against a Spitfire in which he was able to stay on the tail of the Spitfire no matter what the Spitfire pilot tried to do.

This article caused a bit of a stink prompting Spitfire test pilot Alex Henshaw to respond in September '95 http://www.theaviationindex.com/publ...pilots-defence:

First Henshaw described a typical demonstration flight at Castle Bromwich

"...The Spitfire would then continue with a series of loops and half-rolls to gain height over the airfield to between 4,000 and 5,000ft. Depending on the precise position of the aircraft in relation to the airfield, the usual procedure was to dive to 450-470 mph in front of the flight shed and then pull out and complete an upward roll to the left, one to the right and a half-roll left. This manoeuvre might be repeated or continued with a vertical dive with aileron turns...Considering how often this was demonstrated with all marks of Spitfires I am surprised that it should ever be suspected that wings might suffer structural fialure in such a situation when excessive aileron loads were used in high-speed dives. There was certainly never any fear of a Hurricane losing its wings in a similar situation, as its speed would be much lower."

"It is generally accepted that the Hurricane made a better gun platform than the Spitfire. I have never fired the guns of a Hurricane, but those top-scoring pilots with whom I have discussed the subject all say that the marvlous feature of the Spitfire was the speed at which the guns could be brought to bear on the target. Their reply to the accusation of "hosing' was that the pilot concerned was a poor shot."

"Bee quotes a number of performance figure on both the Spitfire and the Hurricane in a surprisingly loose manner. As every reputable test pilot knows literally hundreds of hours are spent endevouring to obtain the most precise performance figures for every aspect of flight, power, altitude and configuration or modification....From the Mk I Spitfire up until the Mk 21 the Vne was set by the Supermarine technical department at 470 mph IAS at a height assumed to be between 5,000 and 10,000 feet....At no time did the Supermarine test pilots reduce the Vne from 470 mph to 450 mph....If ever any doubts existed within our own test pilots as to the structural risks of diving the Spitfire they were dispelled when reports were received from combat units to the effect that some of their pilots complained of excessive engine revs when diving under extreme conditions....The basic pitch setting of the de Havilland propeller was set to give 3,000 rpm at 9lb boost on take-off, and would remain in the constant speed range up to full power and not exceed 3,000 rpm up to its Vne of 470 mph...it was decided to investigate the problem to its limits.
A standard Mk V without calibrated instruments or modifications was taken up to 37,000 ft. A maximum speed run at full power with engine revs at 3,000 was carried out for 2 minutes before peeling off with a half-roll to dive down to near ground level. Up to the Vne of 470 mph the propeller constant speeded with engine revs at 3,000, and then as the speed increased the propeller came up against its basic pitch setting stop and engine revs climbed rapidly. The ASI indicated what might be assumed to be some degree of accuracy within the normal range, but as the speed progressed beyond the these limits the needle climbed so far into the region beyond the 450 mark that it was obvious that no further notice should be taken of it. We were not certain that the machine had in fact reached its terminal velocity point...it was decide to carry out another dive with greater concentration on the rev counter....This final dive proved two factors. With the single-stage blower Merlin, the Spitfire could not be dived faster, and at 3,700-3,800 rpm in those conditions the basic pitch setting should be readjusted."

"There is never any pleasure or satisfaction in questioning the statements or opinions made by friends or associates of long standing, any more than enjoyment can be gained by denigrating an honoured old warhorse."

Operation Sealion, the German invasion plan, could never have succeeded in the form it took in 1940. Among other things Rhine River barges would have had trouble crossing the channel without swamping, even under ideal conditions on a fine day without being shot at.

A credible cross channel invasion plan would have taken the Germans almost as long to devise as it took the allies to prepare for D-Day.

If Barbarossa had been postponed and the Battle of Britain had continued the main effect would have been on the RAF Bomber Command and later the 8th Air Force.

lol last time I argued your point I have been attacked by the (chiefly British) members of this forum, who dismissed my statement as ridiculous. I was trying to make a historical-strategic point, they marched down the road of national pride and similar propaganda.. Don't expect this place to have a historically objective view of things, this is pretty much the house of double standards ;)

So forcing your opponent into revising their strategic decisions(withdrawing) and surviving the immediate battle is a non-event? it's like a burglar trying to break into your house and you manage to tackle them into fleeing the scene without him stealing anything, it's a win in my book even if the burglar wansn't caught, I get the impression that these alternate views of history are straw clutching types of arguments used by Nazi appologists who are far too caught up in the glamour image of the very impressive German war machine of the time, finding it hard to swallow that they were effectively beaten by someone they percieve as inferior.

as far as the 'National pride' argument used......isn't it just a side effect of what was achieved by the sucess of that event? which as far as I can see is not much different to any other allied nations sense of pride.

Having seen the way Sternjaeger responds to difference of oppinion by someone British I have no doubt I'm about to get slammed as a union flag waving lunatic.

I am sure that Bongo will be along in a bit to put you right Stern :)

Yeah, but we all know ol' Adolf could be quite a kidder in his day. On occasion, he WAS known to change his mind a bit on some things......:rolleyes:

well I dunno which replies you're referring to, the way I see it is that there are also many Brits who are passionate and can make a difference between history and pride, while some others can't and become aggressive in an unreasonable manner (both here and on PM).

In any case, one would think that a different take on an historical event could be refreshing and offer unprecedented food for thought, without necessarily having to undermine the importance of the events involved, but some perceive it as a personal attack for some reason.

In any case, if you're interested in the topic, most of the other thread went down a civilised path and there was some interesting exchange of information and material on the subject.

Amazing how 70 years after the event there are still people who treat the subject as a propaganda war. Did the Luftwaffe succeed in its set goals of crippling the RAF, which was one of the conditions required before an invasion could even be contemplated? Did the Luftwaffe achieve air-superiority over the seas around SE England, preventing the RN from operating against any potential invasion fleet (not forgetting the Kriegsmarine was still recovering from the Norwegian invasion, with most of its cruisers and destroyers sunk or crippled and no real battleships and no aircraft carriers to counter the British battle fleet)? Did the Kriegsmarine or Wehrmacht have the equipment to actually transport enough troops to pull off a successful invasion? Did Germany succeed in invading Britain?

The historical-strategic point is that the Luftwaffe did not succeed in any of its set goals, it's highly debatable whether enough or any troops could have been landed, even had the Luftwaffe been able to achieve even local air superiority, and last time I looked Britain hadn't been invaded. Forget all this nonsense about "national pride and similar propaganda" that's just the usual cop-out of someone trying to use spin to gloss over a German defeat. I ain't even British.

The British Empire and Commonwealth Objective was ''to deny 'The Axis' Air Superiority over Southern England in daylight''. In this they succeeded.

But you're right in that the Axis failed to achieve any of theirs. :)

Is your passion for the 'alternate view' any different?
I see plenty of unreasonable agression on these forums that have nothing to do with Brits.
I did read those discussions and saw the exchanged information but it all boiled down to this weird phrase 'history is written by the winners' as if to suggest that on that basis history as we know it is the fiction, which is basically in the same category as denial of the holocaust, I'm sure had the Nazis won the war then the phrase might have some validity, we almost certainly would have been 'educated' into some very questionable versions of events, I'm sure Hitler would have had us all believe the war was fought against an evil Jewish empire that ate aryan babies and layed eggs in your brain so we had to kill them with fire, even taking into account any 'attrocity' perpitrated by the allies there has been no evidence of it being written out of history, and it's easy to look back now and say how awfull some allied actions were, would we feel differently if we were actually there though? (just a different take on it).

without going into the speculation over a possible invasion and how it should/could have been conducted,

Just like the Germans didn't consider the interruption of aerial operations a loss, but more of a "we'll get back to you later", the course of the war and the change of tactics meant that the aerial clashes over the Channel were never to be repeated, but considering it a defeat for the Luftwaffe is ludicrous to say the least, I think that the conclusions drawn over the Battle of Britain are often controversial, because there's a somewhat skewed perception of the events.

I suppose it's down to semantics, since it's also the use of words like "battle" and "victory" that doesn't apply in an uniform and effective way to those events.
The whole name "Battle of Britain" referred to the aerial operations over the Channel was an invention of the British propaganda machine, the Luftwaffe didn't perceive that as a battle per se, but the first part of Operation Sea Lion, so the interruption of the operation because of other commitments wasn't losing a battle.
In a way it's kinda surprising one has to explain such things, but I suppose the job made by propaganda was so good that "The Battle of Britain" earned its place in the history of UK, rightly so, but with a somewhat distorted significance.

Why is it so hard to accept and understand that history is written by the winners? :confused:
There's no questioning on what we think were the good and bad guys, but it still remains that it's all relative to the side you're in.
The Allies won (thank God!), and in doing so they put down the fundaments of our modern society, and in terms of history they made sure that the evil done by "the enemy" was remembered and condemned, but when evil acts were done by them, they dismissed them as done for a just cause.
What is striking is that some people probably think the Nazis knew they were the baddies: it is not the case, in their own view they were doing their best to clean the world and establish a new world order, which is pretty much what was done by the Allies.

I mean, it's all relative: persecution and segregation was perpetrated over the years by "us good guys" as well (think of Sir Alan Turing and gay persecution or the African American race laws just to name a couple, and I'm not even going to mention Stalin and his 20+ millions of victims), it was just a clash of different agendas.

This all "good vs evil" thing is so naive, I can't believe people still apply such standards to history and society.

Imo the most was done by the Channel itself.

The German failed their operation because their fighters didn't had enough range to provide a true air superiority over England. It was a great mistake.. they shouldn't have started the operation without the use of droptanks.

Because the Channel's existence many German pilots were lost in the sea, while the English ones could bail out or make an emergency landing: in airwars the territory you are fighting above has really a great importance.

In my opinion it's clearly a GB's win, but not one to be really proud of: it's like a 1:0 home win during the extra time because of a German's goal in their own net...

yeah but a win is a win, at least according to them ;)

very much like school playground, doesn't matter how and by how much, as long as it's a win.. Schneider Trophy anyone? ;)

I find your words disturbing. I'm more than sure many Germans disagreed with Hitler and the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance (give it a try to find more)
I have never heard about an "Anti Churchil movement" or "Anti Churchil resistance". It has to be said, you are wrong.

Probably. IMO during the war GB's propaganda made this win greater than it really was, but I'm not claiming they were wrong in doing this. They need it to increase their morale since the war wasn't over.

Of course, after 70 years, claiming that GB kicked Germany's ass is classless. Above all since people who's actually speaking did partecipate to the war... I'll never understand national pride...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgmjL6z2jY

Well of course, whenever you have a regime you also have a dissenting part, I'm not saying all the Germans were good or bad, I'm just saying that the Nazis thought they were fighting for a worthy cause, what's so disturbing about that? :confused:

The fact that many politicians didn't like how Churchill gained prestige and fame from the war events is not a mystery, as I'm also sure you know that a certain part of the British Royal Family had certain questionable sympathies of "National-socialistic nature", even David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain initially had only words of praise and admiration for Hitler, so it's not all that black and white as you might think..

The Germans != The Nazis

You really need to distinguish between the two groups. It's very easy to make disturbing statements if you don't.

And they did using 87 octane fuel in their out numbered Spitfires and Hurricanes. :)

absolutely. Germany happened to be the place where the movement started, but Nazi sympathisers were present everywhere: Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Turkey..

Again, it's important to pay attention to semantics: "Nazi" doesn't equal "Evil" (well at least not technically!), it was the identification of a political movement based on national-socialism, which is the father of modern Germany politics. And when it comes to politics, I can't think of a country more efficient than Germany (considered its size and economic relevance).

"OMG is he saying that Nazis were efficient?!?" No, I'm saying that there are different political models out there that, if no crazy dictators get on top, can be better than our political models. Dictatorships are the evil aspect of politics: Stalin's dictatorship was way more bloody and insane than Hitler's, but he didn't go down history books as the disgusting monster that he was because he happened to play with the good guys when it was needed..

"Socialism" is considered to be a bad thing as much as "Communism" in the USA, but again it's a demonisation that was caused by the war and politicians.. gosh this is a long concept and it's OT.. PM if you wanna talk about it.

Did they?
Or did the German airforce just stop trying to achieve air superiority over Southern England in daylight. is there a difference?
The answers are no clear.

Well, stop trying = give up.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Nosense, the Germans were operating from France, last time I checked that was just on the other side of the channel so where is the advantage? do you really believe allied pilots were immune from capture by landing in the channel? do you really believe the Germans could not be rescued by their own side? the channel is irrelevant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...f-Britain.html

Hear hear.

Stern's just back on his soapbox, repeating the same old 'Schneider Trophy', 'Alan Turing', 'the Germans had other priorities', sidetracking, self opinionated, self absorbed cliches he always does. Trouble is, his deliberately provocative style of trolling always invokes a response, which is precisely what he wants, so's he can further his own agenda to his heart's content. After all he sits around all day every day just waiting for another opportunity to impress himself by making the same old tired statements.

Next he'll be asking 'don't you have anything better to do? :rolleyes:' because he quite evidently hasn't.

well technically that's incorrect, since Operation Sea Lion was put on indefinite hold. Once again, battle of semantics..

Yes, really a nosense... Where did they usually fought? Over France? I understand that the British radar was usefull to intercept the bombers... but doing it near the French coast is a bit irrealistic, don't you think?

IIRC they were fighting near the english coast or over England... then the 109s have to go back for the range issue.

Answering to the second question: it was difficult to save the pilots, since Churchill ordered to attack the rescue planes/ships too. So even if they bailed out they would be dead in water without the help of the rescue planes, while by emergency landing on the ground they could go home on their feet (like many did on the eastern front).

Could the german pilot return to home on their feet from english territory?

And about the Channel being irrelevant: do you really think GB could defend itself against the german infantry and panzer armies?

well... the RAF was playing defensive, not offensive, so the majority of dogfights happened closer to the British coast or over British soil, that in a way is a considerable advantage. As for falling in the Channel: it wasn't much about being captured whilst in the drink, but surviving long enough in the waters.

Whilst I'm having a private conversation on the matter with Rumcajs, you don't miss a chance to renew your beef with me, calling me names and trying to bring the so far civilised conversation a notch down.. and I am the troll :rolleyes:

In any case, I'm pretty sure that you know that without Turing things could have gone way way different, yet you call his persecution a cliche'.. I salute your courage.

it's not hard to accept, it's just ludicrous to suggest that because of that it 'must' be all lies, did the Vietnamese win the Vietnam war?.....yes.....whose history tells us so?.......everybody's because it is fact.

this is the most incredible thing I have heard yet, frankly it's disgusting and offensive and you have just fallen straight into the Nazi appologist cattegory, as bad as bombing civillians is, there is no justification for exterminating people en-masse in the most inhumane ways conceivable based purely on ethnicity and religion, the civillian populations of Germany were never targeted for extermination, the Allies did't make the decisions to bomb them easily, what had to be taken into account was that these Germans were working in munitions factories, they were creating future generations for their armies, they were responsible for perpetuating the situation, they may have been a 'frightened' populace affraid to turn against their oppresive taskmasters but the fact is their reluctance to act was causing the greatest injustice in the world and the allies were doing something about it and at least made an attempt to warn them.

I realise now that your concern for these causes is a smokescreen, it is just merly a way for you to justify your Nazi sympathy by appearing in touch with moderate views.

an uncalled for snipe at the British which as far as I saw was not prompted by any of the alleged Nationalist propaganda you so often cry about, what has the schneider trophy got to do with it? nobody bothered to oppose the British because it was pointless by then, it's not the Brits fault, if only you had the same views when it came to your beloved Nazis and their unfairly advantaged/unopposed conquests in europe.

what is disturbing about it? let me see, it might have something to do with the fact it was brutal/total/mercyless genocide they thought was a 'good cause' like nothing the world had seen before.

George Galloway had noting but 'praise and admiration' for Sadam Hussein, and he's just been elected into parliament here, yes this world is 'crazy and FUBAR', but neville chaimberlain didn't lead Britain during the war, your arguments are a little weak by using the moderate branding of National socialism, it was just a way for Hitler to convince the German populace they needed him in power, yes the Germans thought they were fighting for a good cause, it's just it was all a lie created to hide Hitlers true agenda, the Germans fell for it and fought for it and ultimately paid the price.

remember that folks, if youre ever getting an arse kicking just give up and say it's on indefinate hold and you never really lose......brilliant!

and what?....were the Germans more allergic to salt water? what exactly was the advantage for a british pilot in the drink over a German?

if youre going to bomb another country you just have to live with the fact youre over enemy territory, it's just incredible people a criticising the British for having a 'home advantage', at least the British weren't using V bombs...talk about indiscriminate murder of civillians.

Desparate straw clutching, the Germans made their own bed so they had to lie in it, the Germans tried a bombing operation to gain air superiority, they failed, had they succeeded, the channel would have been a little pond for them to float the panzers across to finish us off, obviously it's a bitter pill for some to swallow but the Germans were just human beings too, they weren't the fantasy Imperial stormtroopers with amazing alien technology that some romanticise about, they weren't as brilliant as some think and the British were not as bad as others think, the channel was not some secret weapon we magically created at the outbreak of war...it's been there a long time....it's not our fault.

Nope. I call your repeated reference to his 'persecution' a deliberately sidetracking cliche when it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

whoa whoa whoa, easy tiger, I think you got it all wrong.. let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points..

I think the example of Vietnam exemplifies your confusion on the concept of "winning": Vietnam was divided in two parts, and as much as there was an anti-American feeling, many others didn't really like the idea of living under a Communist regime. Talking about "Vietnamese winning the war" doesn't actually make any sense because of the socio-political implications of the Vietnam war.

again, double standards. How can you justify joining forces and arming a mass murderer of the size of Stalin and live with the fact that he killed and persecuted millions more than Hitler and for more futile reasons at times is something I really wanna hear.
I'm not justifying Nazism, I'm just appalled by double standards set up for personal interests "yeah good ol' uncle Joe has a bit of rough hand with his folks, but hey, if this helps us winning against Hitler, let him on board!" :rolleyes:
As for area bombing, go look for the other thread on it, justifying area bombing is as valid as justifying a war crime, and funnily enough it's only after that that the Geneva convention cared about the well being of civilians..

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously? :confused:

that's your view, the rest of the world on the other hand thought that racing without opponents, when in the past the races had been called off for the lack of participants, was puerile and grotesquely silly, and aimed merely at wanting to keep the Cup.. but hey, fair enough, if that's the way you like to win..

so were Dresden, Bremen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... ah no sorry, those were for a good cause! :rolleyes:

my point was that appearances can be deceiving, and if a German politician has enough carisma to enchant British ones, then it doesn't surprise me he managed to drag the whole of Europe to hell with his talk.

well hey, that's what happens when you study history, you get to know about these things called facts. Your comparison shows how intelligently you're facing the topic here..

we were talking about the odds of being saved and brought back to fight when being closer to your territory... jesus, are you actually reading the other people's posts or are on a flag waving mission? :confused:

What? Are you serious?

The german pilot is over England since he is trying to GAIN air superiority (a thing that was irrealistic to attain since the low range of their main fighter machine) and one of these things happens to him:

- His plane is damaged by an english fighter -> he bails out (captured) or he ditches (probably dead/captured/safe)
- His plane is damaged by flak -> he bails out (captured) or he ditches (probably dead/captured/safe)
- His plane has a issue and he has to return home. -> he try to return home... probably he ditches again (probably dead/captured/safe).

The British pilot is over England trying to AVOID german air superiority:

- His plane is by a German -> he bails out or he try an emergency landing (safe)
- His plane is damaged by flak -> no possible... there's no german flak over England
- His plane has a issue and he has to return home. -> He lands (safe).

Nobody is critizing UK for that advantage: it's been a german's mistake to start the battle without a good long range fighter (the 110 wasn't so good... above all then they used it as an escort fighter).

Still the British HAD that advantage: you only need to recognize it as an advantage you gained because of Germany's fault. It's a Germany's mistake, not a UK's success. It was a score on their own goal... in extra time since Hitler ordered to bomb the cities.

well persecution was mentioned, and I couldn't refrain from reminding this " cliche' ", sorry..

again, the point is not Turing's persecution per se, it's that when in a country certain laws are in vigour, there's not much you can do, is there? And this was not only the case of Nazi Germany, we all have our skeletons in the closet..

Is this referred to me?

It's what I'm saying...

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 :-(

Nothing, and I haven't said theres anything wrong with you either, can nobody here argue a point without bringing sanity into question?

Did I say that? but like you say it doesn't matter what territory you fight over, it doesn't immunise you from death by being over home, so what if 109's could only do 15 mins CAp, 15 minutes is a long time when you are trying not to be killed, 15 minutes is plenty of time for an uberfighter to take out a few inept island monkeys.

like I said it's not all about the 110, spits and hurris were trying to shoot down, JU-87, JU-88, DO-17, HE-111, BF110, and BF109 in overwhelming numbers, are you saying the 109's protecting bombers meant they couldn't engage.....what the hell do you think they were protecting bombers from? the channel?

could they? the German war machine was being developed in secret, what were we supposed to be preparing for if we didn't know it was coming until very late?

yeah, while the British were trying to figure out how to tie shoe laces the channel was shooting bullets.

repeat away, I don't believe you, Nazis weren't stupid because they were german, and the British did a hell of a better job than you are giving credit.

Just to clarify a couple of points about air-sea rescue during the battle: for the British this was one of their weakest links and biggest oversights because there was no real a/s rescue organisation set up - British pilots and aircrew who ended up in the 'oggin were lucky if they either landed near a convoy and were picked up by a passing ship, or were close enough to land to swim ashore, or close enough to one of the German rescue buoys - otherwise they were often left to their own devices -according to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...f-Britain.html

maybe 200 pilots were lost because of this failure. According to Stephan Bungay The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain even the issue shirts worn by British pilots and aircrew (made by Litchfield) were a liability because the collars would shrink when wet, possibly helping to strangle the poor wearer. In addition, the issue "Mae Wests" were not self-inflating and it was well nigh impossible for someone who was injured or in shock to have the strength to inflate it. Of course, on top of it all the normally cold water meant hypothermia could set in very quickly.

By contrast the Luftwaffe was highly organised, with Seenotdienst air-sea rescue units, properly equipped rescue buoys and reasonable life jackets and life rafts, and all aircrew carried sachets fluorescein which created a large, easy-to-see, bright green patch when in contact with water.

Great post Fenrir, as always.

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

well obviously you don't know much about the story of the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh? :rolleyes:

again, look at the broader picture, not the national individualities.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2.

fair enough.

Lets see: "few inept island monkeys", "British were trying to figure out how to tie shoe laces", "Nazis weren't stupid because they were german, uber-this, uber-that... you are acting like people who think germans pilots and machines where superior to the allied ones as they despite the allied's pilots and planes...
Dammit even if I claim the German machines weren't really so great (me110, Stukas, He111 and above all the serious 109's lack of firepower and range...) you act like I'm a German lover and of course a big GB hater...

An you've broken this too...
http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-cont.../sarcasm01.jpg

As Ayrton Senna rolled up to the Grid, he thought 'Hee Hee! Everyone else crashed in practice and as usual the Italians aren't ready and aren't sure who they want to win anyway! All I need to do is tour around this final round of the season and the World Championship is mine!!'

But being a Gentleman he said, 'No no. Even though the others crashed or weren't organised enough, I cannot accept this championship on the basis of my points scored to date this season'.

What a gentleman!

I don't know what planet you live on.

Oh, and :rolleyes:

Ok I can concede that the holocaust was not the largest genocide in history, the biggest were done by China and Russia, the point is that Germany started a war and that was enough to justify the allies to respond in kind because even without a Nazi agenda the Germans were wrong to start it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the battle of Britain as a battle? Isn't 2 opposing sides engaged in combat enough? Who exactly is being picky here? I'm sorry but your explanation of the British not being sure of what would happen etc seems like complete garbage can you spell that one out a bit better because I haven't seen that definition used to explain a 'battle' before, while you are at it can you tell me if the battle of France, the battle of the bulge were battles? Or is it just simply a case of the Germans not calling it a battle so it can't have been.

.

I don't recall mentioning anything about absolute goodies and baddies, so yes I can concur it is very much a point only you have made, either way even you have said thank goodness the allies won, is that not an acknowledgement on your behalf that in relative terms the allies were better than the Nazis? If yes then you seem to take this discussion down some irrelevant roads, if no then you need to take back a few of your own statements.

Ok, it's just that you do a lot of nitpicky type of explanations that are geared around showing the Nazis didn't commit the worst atrocities in history, and also in your own words justifying their actions because they believed they were fighting a good cause, it sounds quite apologetic and in contradiction to other statements you have made.

Interesting choice to highlight Nazi here, as if to suggest the Germany part is not relevant, I believe the German military were from Germany no? They were the sons and daughters of German families were they not? It does make it easier for me to accept you are not so much a Nazi apologist , but you obviously feel a very strong affection of things German, and in a Gallant way you are trying to defend the honour of Germans, don't worry, I really don't think the Germans need it, I personally don't hold every German responsible for the past, the war is over.

Thank you

P.s. I forgot to quote the shneider trophy point, I must say your own knowledge of the subject is quite questionable, not exactly a case of a one horse race, it's just all the participants that season were British, the other participants didn't get machines ready in time, yes just turning up is a less satisfying way to win an event but it's a given that the supermarine aircraft would have won even if the others did turn up.

Make up your mind, am I insane or sarcastic?

National Pride ... even to the point of being irrational ... was a foundation stone for National Socialism.

Just saying ....