Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - BBC James Holland

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=16596)

I was so wound up by your post I laid this out very badly by answering your points within the quote. Apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger (Post 184487)

dude, do not insist on this aspect: the Germans shot down some 601 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires (which makes a total of 958 planes more or less). So, despite the tactical advantage of flying over its own territory, the RAF lost almost twice the number of fighters that the Germans did.. even if they lost the same number of planes it would have been a tactical failure for the RAF, considering their territorial advantage.

The RAF were concentrating on attacking bombers. The idea that the Battle was all about fighter v fighter encounters is a bit shortsighted. Also, you do not include the Bf110 fighters in your figures. This brings the fighter tally closer at 762 German fighter losses.

in addition to the aforementioned fighters, the RAF lost some 53 Blenheims and 76 other planes. Statistics are more accurate nowadays, the Luftwaffe lost circa 1600 planes, the RAF circa 1000.

The RAF lost 1088 according to your figures, so Britain also won the battle of attrition. The losses in trained German aircrew were far greater than 1600, as the RAF concentrated on the bombers.

there were not enough pilots man, that is a known fact. The truth is that if the Fighter Command didn't get a break they would have found very hard to keep their planes in the air, simply because the pilot syllabus wasn't fast enough.

There were not enough pilots to give the RAF a numerical advantage over the Germans, hence needing to achieve a kill ratio of roughly 2 to 1 to be assured of success.
Your version of 'truth' relies on the 'what if' scenario of Germany maintaining their attacks on airfields. What ifs aren't truth. See previous post on impact on airfields.

This is a common misconception: the Germans had already committed a huge number of planes for the Battle of Britain, they started it with the intended number of planes that they wanted, and then had to concentrate their resources on other industrial productions, hence the lower number of planes produced during the Battle of Britain; the British had to change pace and start building planes to catch up with the war. The numbers of planes produced per se doesn't really give any valuable perspective to the battle.

So the fact that the RAF had more aircraft and pilots at the end of the Battle than at the beginning, whereas the Germans had far less also proves nothing?!

I haven't put Dowding and Park on the same level: the former was an old fashioned but charismatic leader who gained popularity with the Battle of Britain (but bear in mind that his "brilliant intuition" was a simple consequence of the entry in service of the Radar system), and unfortunately he wasn't as successful when it came to night fighting issues.. Park was indeed a brilliant tactician, and IMHO is the man that made a real difference in the development of the RAF.

Actually, it was Dowding who instigated the development of airborne radar in the night fighting Beaufighters. Many people thought he was mad.

Sorry Stern, but you really do have to conduct some more in depth research. And not just those works produced by people who've made a career of debunking the propaganda mythology.
I'm not the sort of person who likes to make essay length posts, or I'd tell you myself, but read up a bit more.
Dowding coordinated RDF with the observer corps and telephone and teleprinter services, together with the command/group/sector/airfield/squadron information loop. He took every available development to form a cohesive whole that no-one else in the world had thought of. Calling this a coincidence is just ill-informed and provocative.
He was not old fashioned, but revolutionary and very modern. He wasn't 'charismatic', his nickname was 'Stuffy', and he wasn't well liked. Neither did he gain popularity. He and Park were both moved out of their jobs soon after the Battle due to internal RAF political machinations, and neither of these men were mentioned in the official government pamphlet published soon after the Battle.

This misunderstanding of two men's characters and contributions in itself reveals profound misinformation, which by inference shows the remainder of your arguments to be less than credible at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dduff442 (Post 184435)

It's funny how the 'when plucky little Britain stood alone' story has come to dominate all interpretations of the battle from either side's perspective.

Victory in the air was just the first step in a succession of feats -- each of increasing difficulty -- Germany needed to pull off in order to secure victory. Britain would not have thrown it's last resources into defending the SE or even defending London. The fighter Sqns would have been withdrawn and rebuilt if the BoB started to go wrong.

At that point, Hitler would have had the choice of gambling on a cross-channel attack (i.e. over 20+ miles of unsheltered atlantic waters), but without any navy to secure the sea lanes. One brief experiment was conducted with the landing barges... in daylight and with less than encouraging results.

Swarming across the channel en masse in darkness in their boats designed for inland waterways would have been an entirely different matter. Eisenhower had the most accurate weather forecast ever made in his hands when he ordered D-Day. Without similar information, Germany could have gotten lucky or it could have suffered an appalling fiasco.

Whether German air-landings would have resembled Eben Emael or Crete is anybody's guess but if they weren't much more like the former than the latter then all Germany's chances would have ended.

An German airhead on British soil would have been a deadly threat to Britain so at that point Fighter Command might have been expected to re-emerge with all the strength it could muster.

Cuisers and destroyers would have roamed the channel at night and, if they failed to cut German supplies, a BB could have been sacrificed on an end-run. Recalling the impact of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau etc. on convoys will illustrate the stupefying violence these machines could bring to bear on undefended merchants.

Five or six divisions would probably have defeated Britain's available field forces but you can't occupy a country the size of Britain with 5 Divisions. This was unfortunate for Hitler because sustaining even this force for a brief period was the absolute limit of Germany's logistical capabilities.

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur. Odd then, that this story is inverted when talking about the Battle of Britain. The prospect of invasion was one to be interpreted as an opportunity rather than as a risk.

Having talked up Germany's victories all through the summer of '40, Hitler was a victim of the expectations he had generated. If he didn't clinch it that year, however, he'd be left in exactly the same position as Napoleon: facing an adversary with unassailable naval power, a global trading network, ample supplies of everything Germany didn't have (oil, nickel, manganese, tungsten, rubber etc), willing to sustain the conflict literally for as long as necessary and able to do so for the foreseeable future. All exactly as in 1800-1812.

This wouldn't have been enough to secure an Allied victory, but Germany would never have known peace on its frontiers and sooner or later other powers would have joined the fight.

dduff

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.

Hello Duffiey! You're Irish? Ah well, bully for you. I'm English, and there are few things 'more annoying' than a Republican Paddy with a chip on his shoulder. Boo hoo hoo......"800 years of oppression" blah blah blah. Cry me a River, and GROW UP. Its 2010 now, no sympathy.

Heed not the Myth of the "Gentle Irish", dear reader. In fact, support for 'Herr Hitler', Anti-Semitism and Fascism was rampant amidst the "Emerald Isle" circa 1940.

A fact that they are only now beginning to acknowledge. The Irish are very fond of playing the "victim card", but in fact have been some of the worse persecutors that the world has ever seen. De valera, best pals with Herr Hitler, (Eire Signed the book of Condolence upon Hitlers Death! Awww, how sweet!) Sean Russel (Provo Leader) best pals.....Look, I could go on. And I will, if you provoke me further. Any Nazis in Eire? Well, you should know, since you have knowingly sheltered so many of these Mass Murderers, and did next to nowt to stop it. Wow....A culture of repression, cover ups, and guilt, how are the kids doing?

F*CK YOU.

Want a list, Paddy, Freedom Fighter?

Look, my advice to you (and Ratzinger) is divvent bother. Shut the f*ck up because you do not have a leg to stand on. We have done it before and we will do it again if any 'Man' of you threatens our Children. No mercy. End of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 184793)

I can't see anything in duff's post to warrant that level of unnecessary invective.
I'm English too, and can see his point of view.
BTW, ever heard of Oswald Mosely? Edward VIII? Even Beaverbrook and the Daily Mail supported Hitler and appeasement until Churchill gave him a new job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 184793)

Wow, how nice of you to completely disregard the fact that

a) Irishmen have fought in most of your wars, in many cases after you forcefully drafted them and
b) a lot of what they did was along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Saying the Irish are Nazis is just like saying the Finns are Nazis. But then again, being a westerner with an axe to grind makes it ok for Soviets to be attacked, so we can afford to be understanding towards the Finns, even if they actively took part in the war but the Irish did not, right? :rolleyes:

And let's not forget the rest of the colonies who fought and bled by your side on two world wars, willingly or not, but where greeted with the butt of a rifle to the face after the war, when they thought they would at least be able to "buy" some degree of independence for their troubles and sacrifice. India, Cyprus, the Arab nations, Africa, etc etc, not one of them gained independence without some form of war and without having long time geo-political "hooks" inserted so that you could keep manipulating them for decades to come.

Does that mean the UK is all crap? Far from it. In fact, i am convinced that even statistically speaking, it's impossible for any single group of people (nations, football team fans, religions, political groups, whatever) to be 100% good or 100% rotten.

So why am i saying all that ugly stuff about the UK? Well, i'm just trying to help you understand how you came off in your previous post :-P

See, we can do selective memory too and it doesn't make your country look good either. The thing is, you can't lump everyone together (like i did here to emphasize this point) and expect to be treated as objective.You my friend suffer from an accute case of double standards it seems. And for the record, no, i'm not Irish and i have no problem disagreeing with people and having a civil debate about it.

Maybe you should take notes from the way Dutch posted, he clearly shows that he's willing to apply a common standard to all when judging them and that makes him impartial and objective. The UK had its dirty laundry too and that's what happens with all nations, it's not a surprise.

Like i used to say to some friends when political disagreements came up "if you don't want it talked about then don't do it in the first place, but don't expect people to just shut up about it".

No ill will intended by the way. I know the written medium sometimes seems terse and unforgiving when touching on sensitive subjects, but i'm in a bit of a hurry and couldn't edit this into my usual diatribes that contain all sorts of disclaimers to make sure i ruffle the minimum amount of feathers ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch_851 (Post 184801)

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.

He started it. He said he was 'Irish' as if it mattered to the debate (when in fact it does not)

BTW, ever heard of Oswald Mosely? Edward VIII? Even Beaverbrook and the Daily Mail supported Hitler and appeasement until Churchill gave him a new job

Of course, and this is true. Edward the Traitor however was under 24/7 constant MI5 Surveillance. Mosely? Defeated by the BRITISH PEOPLE (Including Irish Dockers I might add) at the Battle of Cable Street.

an assured sense of its own grandeur.

This is what got my goat, and whoever cried Racsim is barking up the wrong tree.

I don't need lectures from a people who actively supported Fascism ( as far back as Spain and the 'Irish Brigades' Military support of Franco, whom they fought for).

Don't get me started on the 'culture of silence' within Catholicism either, perhaps it is Ok in your book to sanction Holocaust Deniers. Not in mine.

A Brave Irish RAF Volunteer by the name of Cathal O'Shannon however can sum it up far better than I ever could. He remarked that when he returned to his homeland of Ireland he was treat like a criminal. Work that one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyrOw5x5Hn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXfnK...eature=related

There are 4 parts, I actually felt physically sick watching the first few and could not continue.

BTW, it is quite impossible for this post to be "racist" you fool, since I have Celtic blood myself. I am just sick and tired of the English being blamed for all of the worlds woes, and people taking no responsibility for their own actions.

There ye go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 184793)

Wow. Are you sure you cooked up all that indignation just while reading my post or had it been boiling away previously in the back of your mind? You seem to have a few frustrations to work off there.

Large countries patronise small ones. The small countries get defensive and the large neighbours get hurt feelings. These are fact to be filed next to the likes of the Treaty of Westphalia and the United Nations Charter in the minds of the Kissingers of this world.

Fascism's first (and last) blush in Ireland came in 1934. Eoin O'Duffy was thankfully the kind of half-crazed buffoon that even other half-crazed buffoons would hesitate to vote for. He went off to Spain where his force spent one day at the front before being declared officially useless.

Do some research on the number of Irish who actually worked for Nazi Germany in any capacity -- less than 20.

Compare that with the 45,000 Irish volunteers who fought with British forces alone in WWII. *Paddy* Finucane was one, along with 7 other BoB pilots if I remember the credits from 'Battle of Britain' right. Even *Paddy* Mayne (a Northern Unionist) played Rugby for Ireland.

Are these included among "the worst persecutors the world has ever seen"? I'd be interested in your list of the "many ... mass murderers" sheltered in Ireland after the war. I could name a few that found shelter in Britain but would never link the entire nation with Nazism because that would be simply stupid.

If you boil down what I wrote until only the essentials remain, you'll be left with: Britain had the means and the determination to defend her shores in 1940. Obviously my Jeremy Clarkson impression didn't go down well but I think your outpouring of itemised bigotry speaks for itself, frankly.

dduff

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 184838)

He started it.

I don't think so at all.

Quote:

He said he was 'Irish' as if it mattered to the debate (when in fact it does not)

If it didn't matter to you, why did you go on a mad tirade about it?

Quote:

an assured sense of its own grandeur.

This is what got my goat, and whoever cried Racsim is barking up the wrong tree.

It was a general remark, and implicitly but specifically referenced Britain, Spain and Germany, not just Britain as you seem to have thought.

Quote:

I don't need lectures from a people who actively supported Fascism ( as far back as Spain and the 'Irish Brigades' Military support of Franco, whom they fought for).

Not all irish people are active members of the IRA or whatever organisation it is you hate.

Yawn

And my dads bigger than yours..................

Let return to the threads origins please.

Decided to take this post off. Hopefully the situation is 'resolved'.

...and just when I'd nailed Sternjaeger with my devastating logic ... ;)

Anyone want to get this thing back on track?