[ATAG_Dutch]

James Holland (no relation by the way), hmmmmm.....

Saw the whole documentary twice and also read the book twice.

The book is fine, although he doesn't seem to understand the difference between positive and negative 'G' (in the book that is), and seems to want to uphold the mythical 'David and Goliath' image of the Battle. 'How on earth did we win??'

The documentary was enjoyable on first viewing, but pretty biased on the second in some unusual ways. For instance, the implication was that the 109 (all of them) had 55 seconds of 20mm ammo, because he mixed the mg info with the cannon info. Of course this could be the editor's fault.

55s of 2x7.92mm is the same weight of lead as 15s of .303. But of course if you can only keep your sights on target for 1 or 2 secs this makes a big difference.
The cannon armed 109s had 7s of cannon fire in addition to this and I'm not sure what the wing mgs had in the earlier versions.

Tom Neil's comments had also been suitably edited to make out that the RAF won from a terribly inferior position, 'We had peashooters against these cannons' etc, just before Holland emphasised the 55s of 20mm cannon fire.

Ludicrous.

Doesn't do anyone any favours. Not the layperson, not the historian, not the brave men who did what they did on both sides.

The man's a charlatan. Holland that is.

Queue Sternjaeger.