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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

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.

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?

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..

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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.

[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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

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.

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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

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.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

[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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

It has to be said, you are wrong.

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? ' because he quite evidently hasn't.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Well, stop trying = give up.

Seems pretty clear to me.

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

[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?