BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[ATAG_Dutch]

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

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

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.