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

[taildraggernut]

Ehi what's wrong with you?

Nothing, and I haven't said theres anything wrong with you either, can nobody here argue a point without bringing sanity into question?

Did Germans had that force field? Did they never died in their cockpits?
I didn't put the option since there was not a reason... dead is dead over any territory.

Did I say that? but like you say it doesn't matter what territory you fight over, it doesn't immunise you from death by being over home, so what if 109's could only do 15 mins CAp, 15 minutes is a long time when you are trying not to be killed, 15 minutes is plenty of time for an uberfighter to take out a few inept island monkeys.

What's about then? The 110 was the only one fighter who could CAP over England because of his range. The 109s were better fighters but not could provide air superiority alone. With an automomy of 15 minutes over London they could do very much... what it they went to battle using droptanks to increase their autonomy?

They could "protect" the bombers staying directly over english airbases, attacking the Spits/Hurries during their path for the bomber stream. This is air superiority.

Germany made a mistake when started the battle with this kind of equipment (and we can say the same about Stukas, great CAS machine who NEED air superiority to survive)

like I said it's not all about the 110, spits and hurris were trying to shoot down, JU-87, JU-88, DO-17, HE-111, BF110, and BF109 in overwhelming numbers, are you saying the 109's protecting bombers meant they couldn't engage.....what the hell do you think they were protecting bombers from? the channel?

They are responsible for that advantage... British and French were responsible for they lack of weapons... They could have prepared themself long before the war.

could they? the German war machine was being developed in secret, what were we supposed to be preparing for if we didn't know it was coming until very late?

Instead the Channel is responsable for itself alone... the Germans have lost so much because of it..

yeah, while the British were trying to figure out how to tie shoe laces the channel was shooting bullets.

So, I repeat my opinion: UK won the battle, of course, but more because Nazis' stupidity than for allied pilots' skill and machines.

repeat away, I don't believe you, Nazis weren't stupid because they were german, and the British did a hell of a better job than you are giving credit.

[NZtyphoon]

Just to clarify a couple of points about air-sea rescue during the battle: for the British this was one of their weakest links and biggest oversights because there was no real a/s rescue organisation set up - British pilots and aircrew who ended up in the 'oggin were lucky if they either landed near a convoy and were picked up by a passing ship, or were close enough to land to swim ashore, or close enough to one of the German rescue buoys - otherwise they were often left to their own devices -according to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...f-Britain.html

maybe 200 pilots were lost because of this failure. According to Stephan Bungay The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain even the issue shirts worn by British pilots and aircrew (made by Litchfield) were a liability because the collars would shrink when wet, possibly helping to strangle the poor wearer. In addition, the issue "Mae Wests" were not self-inflating and it was well nigh impossible for someone who was injured or in shock to have the strength to inflate it. Of course, on top of it all the normally cold water meant hypothermia could set in very quickly.

By contrast the Luftwaffe was highly organised, with Seenotdienst air-sea rescue units, properly equipped rescue buoys and reasonable life jackets and life rafts, and all aircrew carried sachets fluorescein which created a large, easy-to-see, bright green patch when in contact with water.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Evening all.

Ok, to start I'm a loosely patriotic Brit but am well versed in this countries Pros & Cons, throughout history and at present - I also regard myself as being able to evaluate an argument on it's merit and as such re-evaluate my position.

My first point is this - Battles are more often lost than won.

To clarify, it's usually the side that makes fewest mistakes that wins. That criteria alone would lean us towards a German 'loss'.

However, air battles are not land battles - no territory is gained or lost, and though one side may lose more than another in numbers, their logistical foundation may be better able to absorp the losses and keep them in the fight. So you can't always trust the victory tally either.

Air Superiority is a vague term to actually define and even harder to quantify; at what exact moment can you say empirically that you have air superiority? And you are right to argue semantically about it. It's rather more an art of perception than of accountable fact.

As such I would propose that any aerial battle is won in part by the greater attrition of the enemies numbers, but also by the meeting of your own objectives with as few losses as possible and the clear perception (at the present time of battle) of enemies reluctance or inability to decisively and regularly meet you in combat.

In all cases I suggest that presents a German loss.

Turn these citeria upon the RAF during the 1941-42 Cross Channel air battles and you see a similar outcome, without the poor logistical support that the Luftwaffe faced during the BoB. In fact although the RAF 'lost' the Cross Channel campaign in the early years by learning the lessons and braving the losses they eventually turn the tables through '43 into '44 with the assistance of the USAAF because they had the political desire to stay in the fight and most importantly the economies to support the action.

Similarly Malta. Who won the air war there? Arguably at any time the Luftwaffe was offensive over the island they quickly made things incredibly difficult for the RAF. However, the will to commit decisively was consistently inconsistent, allowing the RAF to build forces and prevent the Axis powers from gaining complete domination.

The will to fight the attrition battle on all of these occasions was knocked out of the Luftwaffe and the German high command in particular - their eyes were always elsewhere, tryng to conserve forces for future offensives or crisis spots in all off the presented campaigns.

I present to you that the Germans lost the battle of Britain because battles are more often lost than won - that the Luftwaffe made more mistakes: they suffered from vague objectives that changed at a crucial juncture because of faulty intelligence - and I suspect no small measure of inflated self worth - but most importantly a lack of commitment in terms of economic and logistical infrastructure and in willingness to focus to the cause at hand. They did not meet their objectives; they suffered heavy losses that they could not keep pace with. The RAF met theirs whilst suffering losses and even further, it grew stronger in numbers whilst doing so.

These criteria point to a German loss, and ergo, a British win for me.

Great post Fenrir, as always.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Ok, answer my point then, is history as we know it a lie? did the holocaust happen and was it perpetrated by the Nazis? if none of that is a lie then why should the Battle of britain speciffically be a lie?

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

I never brought the Soviets into the argument, they have nothing to do with the Battle of Britain directly, I personally don't think there was any choice with that regard, my enemy's enemy is my friend until such time the immediate threat is over, hence why immediately after the second world war the 'cold war' started, do you really think there was a chance of a good outcome had the allies decided to fight the Russians too? Fighting the nazis was the best decision because they were the 'worst' of a bad lot and they started the bloody war in the first place, the Russians didn't, Look, if you start a fight with me and start gouging my eyes out I'm going to kick you in the nuts.....this is a hypothesis both are dirty tactics, which one is worse?
I'm not justifying area bombing, I'm just trying to stop you from using it as a validation for your arguments, it wouldn't have happened if Germany hadn't started the war, I don't care how many alternate views on History you have managed to read, it's just simple fact and you don't have to be British to understand the Germans started the war.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones.

No but I am saying you are a Nazi appologist, based on what I'm reading here, it's just the study material I'm being provided to blame.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

and why exactly were there no opponents? oh yes, something to do with nobody else being competent enough to complete the challenge, so we just turned up....no biggie, it was a very prestigious prize and everybody else just effectively chickened out, and apparently this makes the Brits look bad, typical, the Brits get good at something and everybody else just goes home with a right cob on complaining and saying it's just a stupid game and they don't want to play any more.

well obviously you don't know much about the story of the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh?

Maybe, I don't personally know but I think they were aimed at ending the worst global conflict since the first one, as far as I know germany still exists, had things gone the other way I don't think many ethnicities and cultures would even be in history books, and hiroshima and Nagasaki you can blame on the Amricans not the British.

again, look at the broader picture, not the national individualities.

Well we have common ground perhaps, let's just blame it all on Hitler and accept what happened was because of him, certainly thats how the British feel about it, no animosity towards Germany per se but there wasn't much else that could be done other than fight a war with germany because Hitler pushed them into it, if only Germany had allowed the allies to march through Germany straight to his door so we could take him out it could have avoided alot of unpleasantness.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2.

you like to use this line alot, apparently you are infallible and beyond question, and like to question anybody who disagrees with you's intelligence, I'll let it slide as i'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of things, but if you are going to use lines like 'let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points.. ' then please extend a similar courtesy.

fair enough.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Nothing, and I haven't said theres anything wrong with you either, can nobody here argue a point without bringing sanity into question?

Lets see: "few inept island monkeys", "British were trying to figure out how to tie shoe laces", "Nazis weren't stupid because they were german, uber-this, uber-that... you are acting like people who think germans pilots and machines where superior to the allied ones as they despite the allied's pilots and planes...
Dammit even if I claim the German machines weren't really so great (me110, Stukas, He111 and above all the serious 109's lack of firepower and range...) you act like I'm a German lover and of course a big GB hater...

An you've broken this too...

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

the Schneider Trophy: there were no opponents cos France had an accident and lost their plane, whilst Italy wasn't ready yet. It happened before and the race was called off, but the Brits won 2 times in a row already, and to win the Trophy for good you needed to win it 3 times in a row. So they decided to race alone, nice uh?

As Ayrton Senna rolled up to the Grid, he thought 'Hee Hee! Everyone else crashed in practice and as usual the Italians aren't ready and aren't sure who they want to win anyway! All I need to do is tour around this final round of the season and the World Championship is mine!!'

But being a Gentleman he said, 'No no. Even though the others crashed or weren't organised enough, I cannot accept this championship on the basis of my points scored to date this season'.

What a gentleman!

I don't know what planet you live on.

Oh, and

[taildraggernut]

no, but there are many darker and controversial events of history that are deliberately overlooked. The holocaust did happen but it wasn't the biggest genocide of history, yet it's portrayed as the most horrific thing ever (probably because it's so well documented). The Battle of Britain isn't a lie, the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 were real and fierce, but one side perceived it in a way and the other in a totally different way. The use of the concept of "battle" is somehow wrong, since Great Britain wasn't sure of what was going to happen, whilst the Luftwaffe knew that their intervention was part of a much bigger operation.

Ok I can concede that the holocaust was not the largest genocide in history, the biggest were done by China and Russia, the point is that Germany started a war and that was enough to justify the allies to respond in kind because even without a Nazi agenda the Germans were wrong to start it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the battle of Britain as a battle? Isn't 2 opposing sides engaged in combat enough? Who exactly is being picky here? I'm sorry but your explanation of the British not being sure of what would happen etc seems like complete garbage can you spell that one out a bit better because I haven't seen that definition used to explain a 'battle' before, while you are at it can you tell me if the battle of France, the battle of the bulge were battles? Or is it just simply a case of the Germans not calling it a battle so it can't have been.

my whole point is that there's no absolute goodies or baddies, we all have our fair share of despicable actions. It's all about who overcomes who and they will claim to be the good ones

.

I don't recall mentioning anything about absolute goodies and baddies, so yes I can concur it is very much a point only you have made, either way even you have said thank goodness the allies won, is that not an acknowledgement on your behalf that in relative terms the allies were better than the Nazis? If yes then you seem to take this discussion down some irrelevant roads, if no then you need to take back a few of your own statements.

I don't think of myself as a Nazi apologist, there's not much that can be justified in their conduct, so no.

Ok, it's just that you do a lot of nitpicky type of explanations that are geared around showing the Nazis didn't commit the worst atrocities in history, and also in your own words justifying their actions because they believed they were fighting a good cause, it sounds quite apologetic and in contradiction to other statements you have made.

Yes, Nazi Germany started WW2

Interesting choice to highlight Nazi here, as if to suggest the Germany part is not relevant, I believe the German military were from Germany no? They were the sons and daughters of German families were they not? It does make it easier for me to accept you are not so much a Nazi apologist , but you obviously feel a very strong affection of things German, and in a Gallant way you are trying to defend the honour of Germans, don't worry, I really don't think the Germans need it, I personally don't hold every German responsible for the past, the war is over.

fair enough

Thank you

P.s. I forgot to quote the shneider trophy point, I must say your own knowledge of the subject is quite questionable, not exactly a case of a one horse race, it's just all the participants that season were British, the other participants didn't get machines ready in time, yes just turning up is a less satisfying way to win an event but it's a given that the supermarine aircraft would have won even if the others did turn up.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Lets see: "few inept island monkeys", "British were trying to figure out how to tie shoe laces", "Nazis weren't stupid because they were german, uber-this, uber-that... you are acting like people who think germans pilots and machines where superior to the allied ones as they despite the allied's pilots and planes...
Dammit even if I claim the German machines weren't really so great (me110, Stukas, He111 and above all the serious 109's lack of firepower and range...) you act like I'm a German lover and of course a big GB hater...

An you've broken this too...

Make up your mind, am I insane or sarcastic?

[WTE_Galway]

National Pride ... even to the point of being irrational ... was a foundation stone for National Socialism.

Just saying ....