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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

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.

[6S.Manu]

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...

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

In my opinion it's cleary a GB's win, but not one to be really proud of: it's more a 1:0 home win on 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?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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...

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

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...

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

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

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...

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

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

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

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?

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

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?

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.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Desparate straw clutching,

Is this referred to me?

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

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.

It's what I'm saying...

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

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

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.