Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

An Coilean · 26-12-2012 10:21pm

dave1987 wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what is painfully obvious yet not for you?

Britain didn't massacre entire populations because of their religious beliefs simple as.

Are you conceding that Britain did indeed use Concentration Camps where innocent civilian Women and Children died?

Reindeer · 26-12-2012 10:55pm

As an American, I've really no light to shed on this subject. Personally, I think Ireland did the right thing and the USA did the wrong thing. I believe that if the US became involved sooner and acted aggressively against Germany that WWII would have been a lot less messy. In my mind, we should have joined the Sept 3rd Declaration of War on Germany by Britain and France instead of taking the opportunity to declare neutrality shortly thereafter. At that point, it was obvious this was not going to be a small scuffle. American assistance would have arrived three nearly years earlier and drastically changed the entire course of the war, especially since the declaration would have also expedited military spending and development. I understand why the US did what they did, but I don't have to agree with it simply because I'm an American.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-12-2012 10:21pm

Reindeer wrote: »

the USA did the wrong thing. I believe that if the US became involved sooner and acted aggressively against Germany that WWII would have been a lot less messy.

If it had been made clear that the US wanted the Japanese to leave the recently occupied areas of China and not Manchukoko then perhaps the Pacific war might not have happened. That's the big US / Japanese mistake, hawks on both sides were allowed to keep pushing.

US made a fortune selling arms which paid for the build up of US military. The US were involved in convoys and the occupation of Iceland and Pentagon was started in mid '41.

Simply put I doubt the US contribution in '39 would have been equal to that of Czechoslovakia in '38. Certainly would have been less than that of the Russians who the Poles wouldn't let cross their border.

If the French had advanced further in '39 would the Russians have taken the chance of attacking the Germans ?

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=358

The U.S. Army in 1939 ranked 17th in the world in size, consisting of slightly more than 200,000 Regular Army soldiers and slightly less than 200,000 National Guardsmen--all organized in woefully understrength and undertrained formations. The Army possessed only 329 crude light tanks and only a handful of truly modern combat aircraft within a total inventory of just over 1800 planes. It was a force equipped with the leftover weapons, materiel, and doctrine of the last war. It had a grossly overage officer corps, in which advancement was largely a function of seniority. Captains, for example, were usually in their late thirties or early forties. War-related industries were infinitesimal. Congress and the public were united in their staunch opposition to any increased military expenditures or involvements abroad. The mood of the country was distinctly isolationist.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Czechoslovak_Order_of_Battle_-_September_30,_1938_%28Fall_Gr%C3%BCn%29 Look at the size of the Czech army

Dyr · 28-12-2012 12:46am

dave1987 wrote: »

Also of interest of the top 10 Battle of Britain aces the top 3 were British -

1. Pilot Officer Eric Lock (British) of No.41 Sqd. flying a Spitfire shot down 21 Luftwaffe aircraft
Total 26 kills. KIA 3 August 1941.

2. Flight Lieutenant Archie McKellar (British) of No.605 Sqd. flying a Hawker Hurricane shot down 19 enemy aircraft.
Total 21 (possibly 22) three probable and three damaged. KIA 1 November 1940.

3. Sergeant James Lacey (British) of No.501 Sqd. flying a Hurricane killed 18.
(23 by end of November). Total 28 kills.

There was only one Polish and one Czech pilot in the top ten the others were British with one Australian and New Zealand pilot yet you claim they won the Battle of Britain, Its clear your maths are as poor as your history knowledge, it's quite laughable.

Other notable British pilots include Squadron Leader and later Wing Commander Douglas Bader of 242 Sqd. - 20 kills

Robert Stanford Tuck - 27 kills

Compare that to the dozens of german aces who would have had three digit "scores"and you get a picture of the different wars that were being fought. Hartmann probably shot down more planes than all british aces put together

dave1987 · 29-12-2012 2:26am

Bambi wrote: »

Compare that to the dozens of german aces who would have had three digit "scores"and you get a picture of the different wars that were being fought. Hartmann probably shot down more planes than all british aces put together

That's irrelevant to my point. Also you have gave no evidence of what your saying, no point throwing claims out there without facts and figures to back it up.

I will say the Luftwaffe were fighting "other wars" as you put it, against inferior air forces that is the only reason German aces would have higher kill rates, but I'm still waiting to see your evidence.

They met their match with the RAF simple as. It doesn't matter what way you put it, the RAF fighter command were outnumbered 4:1 and still pulled off a clear victory. They were also the first Airforce to bomb Berlin in retaliation. Facts are facts you can't change them.

VinLieger · 29-12-2012 3:42am

The main thing Irish people like to quote in our part of WWII is we allowed allied airmen who ended up here lenience and allowed many to escape across the border, this is far from the truth, the germans and the allies were kept in secure camps in the curragh and were treated basically the same, MAYBE the ODD ally was "let" go free but only in very special circumstances.

Dyr · 29-12-2012 3:50am

Are you disputing that Luftwaffe experten achieved treble digit kills? If you are then maybe read up on the matter yourself because it's common knowledge. The real difference was that german pilots flew continuously throughout the war with little let up except for injury.

As for meeting their match, their match was operation aldertag's goals being unachievable, the whole thing was a washout from the planning board onwards. The german High Command believed that they would knock out Fighter command in only four days.

While we're on facts, here's an interesting one: Between october-december 1940 more german bombers were lost in non combat incidents than were knocked out by enemy action. RAF indeed :pac:

29-12-2012 4:16am

To be honest i am no fan of Eamon De Valera whatsoever but it was basic common sense at the time to declare neutrality. Germany were an ally during the WoI and were sending over ammunition whereas tensions were still there with Britain. Yes eventually we would have been invaded but better to delay it as long as possible otherwise we would have endured a blitzkrieg same time as Britain did and lets face it we just wouldnt have coped. As for the US, when we asked them for help during the WoI they wouldnt go against Britain as they were fighting together in WW1 so really we didnt owe them any favours in that line. While neutrality frustrated the USA at the same time it didnt do any permanent damage given the cultural links so we had nothing to lose really or at least that couldnt be repaired

I dont believe it was selfish on our part. As a nation we had a duty to look after our own nest and we faced alot of uncertainty in quarters. The world was a very different place and Ireland was still trying to stand on its own 2 feet. Lets not forget our constitution was only 2 years old in 1937. Despite being 15 years old we were still relatively fledging.

I will agree though that passing on our condolences for Hitler was a ridiculous thing to do. Even some Germans were probably glad to see him dead. I suppose though maybe there was good reason buts its not clear exactly as to what

Wibbs · 29-12-2012 12:42pm

dave1987 wrote: »

That's irrelevant to my point. Also you have gave no evidence of what your saying, no point throwing claims out there without facts and figures to back it up.

As Bambi asked are you disputing the very high scores of the German pilots? Even if you halved the numbers(and they had more stringent criteria than allied forces) they were by far the most successful nation in history as far as fielding air aces.

I will say the Luftwaffe were fighting "other wars" as you put it, against inferior air forces that is the only reason German aces would have higher kill rates, but I'm still waiting to see your evidence.

The "inferior air forces" bit is part of it and much pushed as a reason today, but not the whole story by any stretch. Take Hans Marseille, the "star of Africa", he shot down over 150 British aircraft, inc Spitfires, Hurricanes, P40's and the like in Europe and North Africa. On just one day he claimed 17 kills and that was corroborated by the British figures after the war. On top of individual's skill other factors made for the huge numbers seen among German aces. Yes inferior pilots/planes was a part of it, so was a bigger propaganda push about aces for the German war machine. Often enough other members of a German squadron would "herd" opponents towards their aces to increase the numbers. Probably the biggest reason of all was that German pilots didn't rotate out of service very much at all. They kept on flying day after day, often many sorties a day, month after month for years, until they were killed or injured enough to be sent back home to teach others. Even in the latter case some nutters kept flying, Hans Rudel kept going minus a leg. He crash landed so many times and walked back to base, the missing leg was a real issue. On one occasion the guy even drove his Stuka on the roads 15 miles back to his base. Individuals with 1000+ missions weren't that unusual in a squadron. Guys with 300 missions were commonplace. That level of experience and expertise and just instinctive control of your machine was going to be a tough nut to crack.

They met their match with the RAF simple as. It doesn't matter what way you put it, the RAF fighter command were outnumbered 4:1 and still pulled off a clear victory.

Four to one is a stretch. On the fighters front, which is the all important bit, the British had 600 odd the Germans a thousand. If you take out pretty useless aircraft like the twin engined 110 and similar among the British forces there weren't that far apart in numbers. Plus over the course of the battle the British force increased while the German decreased. The British were never at less than 70% strength per squadron and only one airfield was ever out of action for longer than a day. Indeed the Germans while regarding the "Few" among the fighter boys as fine adversaries noted that bomber command(who are usually left out of the story) caused them as much if not more hassle and delay because of attacks on their forward bases in France.

The British far from being "on their knees up/against the wall" had a few very important advantages. For a start they were over home ground. Unless they ended up in the channel(something both sides dreaded as it usually meant death) the British pilots who bailed out or crash landed did so on British soil so could be up again the next day if uninjured. German pilots on the other hand ended up being POW's and out of the running.

Secondly their aircraft could loiter for far longer. The German pilots had between 10 minutes and 30 minutes(at most) of fuel to engage. For all that where the Germans did have the advantage of closeness such as over the English channel, they did win that battle or close enough as to make no diff. They stopped traffic in the channel and closed off Dover as an anti invasion port.

The Brits had the channel which was and has been a huge advantage. Most of all they had better commanders and organisation. Guys like Keith Park, a real giant compared to someone like Montgomery.

Yes the British won the battle of Britain, but it was never the close run thing it's oft suggested to have been. Plus the chances of Germany ever successfully invading Britain were slim and they knew it.

Facts are facts you can't change them.

It seems you can, or at least skew them.

gallag · 29-12-2012 3:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

As Bambi asked are you disputing the very high scores of the German pilots? Even if you halved the numbers(and they had more stringent criteria than allied forces) they were by far the most successful nation in history as far as fielding air aces.

The "inferior air forces" bit is part of it and much pushed as a reason today, but not the whole story by any stretch. Take Hans Marseille, the "star of Africa", he shot down over 150 British aircraft, inc Spitfires, Hurricanes, P40's and the like in Europe and North Africa. On just one day he claimed 17 kills and that was corroborated by the British figures after the war. On top of individual's skill other factors made for the huge numbers seen among German aces. Yes inferior pilots/planes was a part of it, so was a bigger propaganda push about aces for the German war machine. Often enough other members of a German squadron would "herd" opponents towards their aces to increase the numbers. Probably the biggest reason of all was that German pilots didn't rotate out of service very much at all. They kept on flying day after day, often many sorties a day, month after month for years, until they were killed or injured enough to be sent back home to teach others. Even in the latter case some nutters kept flying, Hans Rudel kept going minus a leg. He crash landed so many times and walked back to base, the missing leg was a real issue. On one occasion the guy even drove his Stuka on the roads 15 miles back to his base. Individuals with 1000+ missions weren't that unusual in a squadron. Guys with 300 missions were commonplace. That level of experience and expertise and just instinctive control of your machine was going to be a tough nut to crack.

Four to one is a stretch. On the fighters front, which is the all important bit, the British had 600 odd the Germans a thousand. If you take out pretty useless aircraft like the twin engined 110 and similar among the British forces there weren't that far apart in numbers. Plus over the course of the battle the British force increased while the German decreased. The British were never at less than 70% strength per squadron and only one airfield was ever out of action for longer than a day. Indeed the Germans while regarding the "Few" among the fighter boys as fine adversaries noted that bomber command(who are usually left out of the story) caused them as much if not more hassle and delay because of attacks on their forward bases in France.

The British far from being "on their knees up/against the wall" had a few very important advantages. For a start they were over home ground. Unless they ended up in the channel(something both sides dreaded as it usually meant death) the British pilots who bailed out or crash landed did so on British soil so could be up again the next day if uninjured. German pilots on the other hand ended up being POW's and out of the running.

Secondly their aircraft could loiter for far longer. The German pilots had between 10 minutes and 30 minutes(at most) of fuel to engage. For all that where the Germans did have the advantage of closeness such as over the English channel, they did win that battle or close enough as to make no diff. They stopped traffic in the channel and closed off Dover as an anti invasion port.

The Brits had the channel which was and has been a huge advantage. Most of all they had better commanders and organisation. Guys like Keith Park, a real giant compared to someone like Montgomery.

Yes the British won the battle of Britain, but it was never the close run thing it's oft suggested to have been. Plus the chances of Germany ever successfully invading Britain were slim and they knew it.

It seems you can, or at least skew them.

Why are you going to such lengths to discredit the British effort in ww2?

Capt'n Midnight · 29-12-2012 5:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes the British won the battle of Britain, but it was never the close run thing it's oft suggested to have been. Plus the chances of Germany ever successfully invading Britain were slim and they knew it.

Had the Germans kept attacking radar installations and airfields it might have been different.

Had the Me109 been designed to carry more internal fuel - it's the old adage about spitfire vs. mustang , the spitfire was a better fighter but the mustang was better over Berlin because it could get you home again

But even if the Germans had air superiority it still wouldn't have been easy. Look at forces involved on D-Day and people still query what could have happened if the panzers had been closer. The Germans could not have mustered such forces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_01.shtml

From March 1944, north-western France became the focal point for air activity, the largest sustained air offensive of the war, codenamed the Transportation Plan. By the first week in June, French rail and road communications had been seriously degraded and the Luftwaffe in France reduced to about 800 operational machines. But the cost had been enormous. Two thousand Allied aircraft were lost and 12,000 airmen killed.

This was probably more firepower than the German Navy could have deployed at any time. For one beach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Bombardment

For example, the Canadians at Juno beach had fire support many times greater than they had had for the Dieppe Raid in 1942. The old battleships HMS Ramillies and Warspite and the monitor HMS Roberts were used to suppress shore batteries east of the Orne; cruisers targeted shore batteries at Ver-sur-Mer and Moulineaux; eleven destroyers for local fire support. In addition, there were modified landing-craft: eight "Landing Craft Gun", each with two 4.7-inch guns; four "Landing Craft Support" with automatic cannon; eight Landing Craft Tank (Rocket), each with a single salvo of 1,100 5-inch rockets;

Wibbs · 29-12-2012 5:15pm

gallag wrote: »

Why are you going to such lengths to discredit the British effort in ww2?

I'm not. Indeed I've mentioned more than the once the bravery of the men and women involved and acknowledged their contribution. In the above post I said "Most of all they had better commanders and organisation". How is that discrediting them?

I've also completely disagreed with some of the exaggerated jingoism displayed by others suggesting the British were as bad as the Nazis, regarding war crimes/concentration camps. Even got accused of defending war criminals. I'll state again it's beyond daft. Jingoism goes both ways of course, hence when I read things like "the British were vastly outnumbered in the air/German pilots were up against inferior airforces" etc I feel the need to examine such claims.

gallag · 29-12-2012 5:44pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not. Indeed I've mentioned more than the once the bravery of the men and women involved and acknowledged their contribution. In the above post I said "Most of all they had better commanders and organisation". How is that discrediting them? I've also completely disagreed with some of the exaggerated jingoism displayed by others suggesting the British were as bad as the Nazis, regarding war crimes/concentration camps. Even got accused of defending war criminals. I'll state again it's beyond daft. Jingoism goes both ways of course, hence when I read things like "the British were vastly outnumbered in the air/German pilots were up against inferior airforces" etc I feel the need to examine such claims.

Sorry, quoted wrong post, I ment to quote bambi but from reading other posts it is obvious he/she just plane hates the brits.

Dyr · 29-12-2012 6:54pm

gallag wrote: »

Sorry, quoted wrong post, I ment to quote bambi but from reading other posts it is obvious he/she just plane hates the brits.

Don't blame me, blame those pesky facts

Wibbs · 29-12-2012 7:59pm

To be fair the UK could have sought appeasement in 39 and especially 40. Hitler had privately and publicly declared he didn't particularly want a conflict with the British. He saw them as similar to the Germans. Plus it would have suited him to come to terms as was mooted. IE He keep Europe and they keep their empire and keep out of each others way. That might well have suited them both in the long term. The British may well have held onto their empire for longer to boot.

If Hitler had been left free to hit the USSR without sideshows* like North Africa, Greece and the War in Europe in general, including the very expensive war of the Atlantic, leaving pretty much his entire forces at his disposal for Barbarossa? Stalin and the Soviets would have been fúcked and no mistake. No winter would have protected them for long. They would have their German "living space" and oil and coal reserves. Never mind that if the UK hadn't kicked off by resisting, it's highly unlikely the Americans would have gotten involved. 1) in such a scenario it's unlikely Hitler would have bothered with an Axis pact with the Japanese and 2) the largest immigrant demographic in the US is still German in ancestry(and was even larger then). 3) It would have saved the yanks a fortune having to fight in Europe on top of the far east. 4) neither the Brits nor the Yanks nor the Jerrys were happy with communism so the USSR going south would have been in all their interests. Where it might have gone pearshaped is if the Japanese attacked British interests in the region. If they'd kept their powder dry on that score chances are they may well have won.

So yea IMHO the British stance, even if they had done feck all but the BoB(and they did way more) made a huge difference in defeating the Nazis in Europe. And for those who reckon there was little between the Brits and the Nazis need to read more or get their heads read. If we compare the Nazis and the Soviets under Stalin the comparison holds alright, though TBH I'd prefer to live in Nazi Germany than Stalins Russia(unless I was Jewish, though even there the Soviets were right bastards towards the Jews and antisemitic feeling still runs strong in that neck of the woods).

*I say sideshows and that sounds like denigrating those conflicts, but I mean it in the overall context.

Reindeer · 29-12-2012 8:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

If Hitler had been left free to hit the USSR without sideshows* like North Africa, Greece and the War in Europe in general, including the very expensive war of the Atlantic, leaving pretty much his entire forces at his disposal for Barbarossa? Stalin and the Soviets would have been fúcked and no mistake. No winter would have protected them for long. They would have their German "living space" and oil and coal reserves.

We are all fortunate that Hitler was in charge. If he allowed his field marshals to act in concert, using their own agreed upon strategy, we ALL would have been fucht.

2) the largest immigrant demographic in the US is still German in ancestry(and was even larger then).

It was larger by percentage before the Mexican immigrant push, yes. However, I always thought it was interesting that the amount of Americans claiming German ancestry diminished by half after WWII, and this with Germans immigrating TO the US during the conflict... Gee - wonder why...
I, myself, am partly of German descent.

Capt'n Midnight · 29-12-2012 10:55pm

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair the UK could have sought appeasement in 39 and especially 40. Hitler had privately and publicly declared he didn't particularly want a conflict with the British. He saw them as similar to the Germans.

Or was it more divide and conquer ?

The UK wasn't tying down that many German resources until later on. The main effect would have been the blockade on imports.

Don't forget Plan Z
Obviously this would have had to wait until the Russians were beaten but don't forget that Russia surrendered the Ukraine in WWI

Capt'n Midnight · 29-12-2012 11:03pm

Reindeer wrote: »

We are all fortunate that Hitler was in charge. If he allowed his field marshals to act in concert, using their own agreed upon strategy, we ALL would have been fucht.

If Hitler had done like Stalin and transferred control over when battles were being lost then maybe.

He took many gambles his commanders wouldn't have early on, so probably gained more than his Field Marshals would have.

Of course hindsight is closer to 20/20

dave1987 · 30-12-2012 12:22am

Bambi wrote: »

Are you disputing that Luftwaffe experten achieved treble digit kills? If you are then maybe read up on the matter yourself because it's common knowledge. The real difference was that german pilots flew continuously throughout the war with little let up except for injury.

As for meeting their match, their match was operation aldertag's goals being unachievable, the whole thing was a washout from the planning board onwards. The german High Command believed that they would knock out Fighter command in only four days.

While we're on facts, here's an interesting one: Between october-december 1940 more german bombers were lost in non combat incidents than were knocked out by enemy action. RAF indeed :pac:

Link to German bombers lost in accidents? Also that's an irrelevant fact when you think about it.
How was I disputing any facts?? I was ASKING for them. When I make a point I stick in facts and figures with links to reputable sources. You however just write stuff that has no back up, very vague bambi as are all your anti British arguments.

Wibbs wrote: »

As Bambi asked are you disputing the very high scores of the German pilots? Even if you halved the numbers(and they had more stringent criteria than allied forces) they were by far the most successful nation in history as far as fielding air aces.

I'll say the same to you as bambi, re read my post and not between the lines.

Wibbs wrote: »

Often enough other members of a German squadron would "herd" opponents towards their aces to increase the numbers. Probably the biggest reason of all was that German pilots didn't rotate out of service very much at all. They kept on flying day after day, often many sorties a day, month after month for years, until they were killed or injured enough to be sent back home to teach others. Even in the latter case some nutters kept flying, Hans Rudel kept going minus a leg. He crash landed so many times and walked back to base, the missing leg was a real issue. On one occasion the guy even drove his Stuka on the roads 15 miles back to his base. Individuals with 1000+ missions weren't that unusual in a squadron. Guys with 300 missions were commonplace. That level of experience and expertise and just instinctive control of your machine was going to be a tough nut to crack.

Thats very interesting and very admirable of German pilots. I would like to add I haven't put down the Luftwaffe or its capabilites. In fact at the time I think the German military machine was one if not the finest in the world.
However a hard nut it was to crack, it was none the less "cracked" and in my opinion it was a major downfall of the Third Reich's campaign

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed the Germans while regarding the "Few" among the fighter boys as fine adversaries noted that bomber command(who are usually left out of the story) caused them as much if not more hassle and delay because of attacks on their forward bases in France.

Also alot of RAF fighter squadrons were manned by Bomber Command pilots. I previously posted that Britain out manufactured more aircraft than Germany during the Battle of Britain and gave links.

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems you can, or at least skew them.

4 to 1 isn't a stretch at all, they are the figures regardless of aircraft used.

The Luftwaffe had 2,500 aircraft at it's disposal against approx. 600 RAF fighters. I never stated that the Germans had 2,500 fighters now did I?

As the attacking force, the Luftwaffe needed bombers as they were not going to destroy RAF airfields with fighters?

RAF fighter command was tasked with shooting down German aircraft regardless of it's class whether it be bomber or fighter. So 4 to 1 is accurate!

In fact the RAF's main concern was to shoot down the German bombers in an effort to protect it's airfields and later Britain's cities. The Luftwaffe fighters were more of an inconvenience to the RAF as they were charged solely with protecting the bombers.

How have I skewed facts? Little bit hypocritical coming from you, your good at changing things around and "putting words" into other people's mouths.

dave1987 · 30-12-2012 12:29am

dave1987 wrote: »

That's irrelevant to my point. Also you have gave no evidence of what your saying, no point throwing claims out there without facts and figures to back it up.

I will say the Luftwaffe were fighting "other wars" as you put it, against inferior air forces that is the only reason German aces would have higher kill rates, but I'm still waiting to see your evidence.

They met their match with the RAF simple as. It doesn't matter what way you put it, the RAF fighter command were outnumbered 4:1 and still pulled off a clear victory. They were also the first Airforce to bomb Berlin in retaliation. Facts are facts you can't change them.

Where did I argue Luftwaffe aces 3 digit kill rates Wibbs and bambi? I just asked for figures as I have given in my posts? :eek:

Should of gone to specsavers!

Wibbs · 30-12-2012 1:32am

dave1987 wrote:

4 to 1 isn't a stretch at all, they are the figures regardless of aircraft used.

Regardless of aircraft used? Are you for real? The Polish air force had quite the number of aircraft and how did that turn out for them? Right. Not so well as it happens. Ad how well did the BEF do? Hmmm two for two in the not so well as it happens. In the case of air superiority it's a reverse of the old saw; "never mind the width, feel the quality". No? OK you field two thousand Spitfires and Hurricanes and I'll field just fifty Sukhoi Flankers and let's see how we go.

The Luftwaffe had 2,500 aircraft at it's disposal against approx. 600 RAF fighters. I never stated that the Germans had 2,500 fighters now did I?

You ---- Point --- Country mile.

RAF fighter command was tasked with shooting down German aircraft regardless of it's class whether it be bomber or fighter. So 4 to 1 is accurate!

read the actual stats. Not what Germany had as a whole, but rather what they could field at that time and which aircraft where involved.

In fact the RAF's main concern was to shoot down the German bombers in an effort to protect it's airfields and later Britain's cities. The Luftwaffe fighters were more of an inconvenience to the RAF as they were charged solely with protecting the bombers.

You don't know much about aerial warfare it seems. How do you shoot down enemy bombers? With fighters maybe? And how pray tell does your enemy stop you? Prayers? Kites? ehhh.... maybe with their own fighters? Just a thought. Luckily that thought was well in hand by British commanders of the day.

Oh God. Look, no offence here but for god's sake read a book. Maybe two, three if you're feeling frisky. The diff between of/have will also become more clear, though the Specsavers advertisements themselves should have sufficed if you waited for the ads to finish .This would be a very good start. The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality, by a certain Mr Overy. An English chap to boot. No revisionist is he. Comes well recommended historically. Very good read and covers things nicely and with objectivity*. Not for Sun or Daily Mail readers. It may confuse them to the point where the smell of burning may emanate from their ears. There are many others out there that should add to the overall picture.

*Actually still says more than fair play to the British overall, but good luck with the nuances. Hopefully they're not lost.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-12-2012 1:45am

Wibbs wrote: »

How do you shoot down enemy bombers?

With rugged easy to repair Hurricanes

mikemac1 · 30-12-2012 2:00am

Interesting Daily Mail article a few months back

One of the senior RAF pilots was thought of as a hero and was later knighted.
Sir Douglas Bader

However it later emerged his tactics were disastrous and were hated by his comrades.
Big wing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206657/Second-World-War-veterans-accuse-flying-ace-Sir-Douglas-Bader-putting-pilots-risk-Battle-Britain-tactics.html

The comments on the Daily Mail seem to show Big Wing was widely known.
I hadn't heard of it before

Top comment

The "Big Wing" took time to form up and wasted fuel. By the time 12 Group aircraft arrived to defend 11 Group airfields (which is what they were actually tasked to do, while 11 Group aircraft tackled the German bombers) they were nearly always too late.

Bader flew a Hurricane and always insisted being at the front. This meant that the faster Spitfires were held back.

The RAF was beset by the ugly political manoeuvrings of Air Vice Marshall Mallory and others who wanted the jobs of Air Chief Marshall Dowding and Air Vice Marshall Park.

Bader was an ardent self-publicist - and a spin merchant, who was used to help them achieve their aims. Dowding and Park were treated disgracefully by the RAF and removed, even before the Battle of Britain was over.

Lucyfur · 30-12-2012 2:43am

Totally mis-read the title as something to do with a neutered willy.

I think I should go to bed now.

dave1987 · 30-12-2012 3:19am

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless of aircraft used? Are you for real? The Polish air force had quite the number of aircraft and how did that turn out for them? Right. Not so well as it happens. Ad how well did the BEF do? Hmmm two for two in the not so well as it happens. In the case of air superiority it's a reverse of the old saw; "never mind the width, feel the quality". No? OK you field two thousand Spitfires and Hurricanes and I'll field just fifty Sukhoi Flankers and let's see how we go.

You like straying from the point. 4:1 was the odds, I've read the books, seen the films, yet some guy off the internet seems to argue and I should listen to him? I thought we were talking about the Battle of Britain not the Polish Airforce or BEF?

I'm not talking about quality or quantity I'm talking about numbers regardless of it being a fighter or bomber, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Wibbs wrote: »

read the actual stats. Not what Germany had as a whole, but rather what they could field at that time and which aircraft where involved.

I know what aircraft they fielded and how many -

To further back what I'm saying from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm -

"At the start of the war, Germany had 4,000 aircraft compared to Britain's front-line strength of 1,660. By the time of the fall of France, the Luftwaffe (the German air force) had 3,000 planes based in north-west Europe alone including 1,400 bombers, 300 dive bombers, 800 single engine fighter planes and 240 twin engine fighter bombers. At the start of the battle, the Luftwaffe had 2,500 planes that were serviceable and in any normal day, the Luftwaffe could put up over 1,600 planes. The RAF had 1,200 planes on the eve of the battle which included 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes - but only 660 of these were serviceable. The rate of British plane production was good - the only weakness of the RAF was the fact that they lacked sufficient trained and experienced pilots. Trained pilots had been killed in the war in France and they had not been replaced."

Would you like a knife and fork to eat your words???

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't know much about aerial warfare it seems. How do you shoot down enemy bombers? With fighters maybe? And how pray tell does your enemy stop you? Prayers? Kites? ehhh.... maybe with their own fighters? Just a thought. Luckily that thought was well in hand by British commanders of the day.

It appears my good man that in fact YOU don't know much about this aerial war. Also you have just repeated what I said and changed the words, reading difficulties perhaps?

I have already stated that RAF fighter command were tasked with -

1. Defending its airfields
2. Defending cities, factories, military installations including ports.

IT IS BOMBERS THAT ATTACK THESE TARGETS. THEREFORE FIGHTER COMMANDS PRIMARY TARGET IN BATTLE WAS TO DESTROY GERMAN BOMBERS

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh God. Look, no offence here but for god's sake read a book. Maybe two, three if you're feeling frisky. The diff between of/have will also become more clear, though the Specsavers advertisements themselves should have sufficed if you waited for the ads to finish .This would be a very good start. The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality, by a certain Mr Overy. An English chap to boot. No revisionist is he. Comes well recommended historically. Very good read and covers things nicely and with objectivity*. Not for Sun or Daily Mail readers. It may confuse them to the point where the smell of burning may emanate from their ears. There are many others out there that should add to the overall picture.

Yeah whatever dude, I've clearly hit a nerve. Cross a bridge and get over it

Doc Ruby · 30-12-2012 5:02am

Wibbs wrote: »

And for those who reckon there was little between the Brits and the Nazis need to read more or get their heads read.

Do they now. A broken bottle in the vagina is a broken bottle in the vagina by some lights, of course others are more inclined towards claiming one is no worse than the other. Anyway your grasp of history has already been amply displayed for all to see without me picking it apart any further, wot wot.

Wibbs · 30-12-2012 12:17pm

dave1987 wrote: »

I thought we were talking about the Battle of Britain not the Polish Airforce or BEF?

It's called making comparisons.

I'm not talking about quality or quantity I'm talking about numbers regardless of it being a fighter or bomber, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Indeed. From your own quote; "the Luftwaffe (the German air force) had 3,000 planes based in north-west Europe alone including 1,400 bombers, 300 dive bombers, 800 single engine fighter planes and 240 twin engine fighter bombers. At the start of the battle, the Luftwaffe had 2,500 planes that were serviceable and in any normal day, the Luftwaffe could put up over 1,600 planes. The RAF had 1,200 planes on the eve of the battle which included 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes - but only 660 of these were serviceable. For a start your earlier claim of outnumbered 4 to 1 clearly fails the counting on the fingers maths test. In any event I emboldened different bits to you. They're the important parts when fighting a purely air war as this one was. How do you take down bombers(other than AA guns where again the British naturally had the advantage)? Fighter interceptors. How do you stop your bombers being taken down? Fighter escorts. The success or failure of an air war such as this will hinge on the quality and quantity of single seat fighters and each sides ability to utilise them. On this score in numbers the sides were well enough matched at the start.

After that the British start to pull away in advantages. They had better production and by the end of the battle of Britain they could field over 700 fighters, whereas the Germans were down to less than 400 through attrition. They had the home ground advantage. As a bomber interceptor the Hurricanes and Spitfires had the advantage with loiter time and radar vectoring and better organisation. The German fighter escorts had very little loiter time and overall range to do their job and organisation based around tactical use. Look to later in the war and from the other side as it were. When P51's were seen over Berlin it was abundantly clear the jig was up. Before really long range fighter escorts were employed by the allies, allied losses of bomber crews were scarily high and it was sheer numbers and unbelievable bravery on the part of those crews that kept it going(the fighter boys get the kudos, but IMHO the bomber crews were by far the braver. On all sides).

the only weakness of the RAF was the fact that they lacked sufficient trained and experienced pilots. Trained pilots had been killed in the war in France and they had not been replaced."

Actually they had quite the number of experienced pilots, but too many were "flying desks" or foreign pilots like the Czechs and Poles who weren't utilised in the early stages.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Do they now. A broken bottle in the vagina is a broken bottle in the vagina by some lights, of course others are more inclined towards claiming one is no worse than the other. Anyway your grasp of history has already been amply displayed for all to see without me picking it apart any further, wot wot.

Right. So because I don't equate a relatively small scale, though morally repugnant criminal action by one party to a nation sized meat grinder organised slaughter by another side, I'm now a "west brit/unionist"? Good jesus.

OK let's try and break it down and remove the obvious touchy flags for some. Consider a serial killer like Ted Bundy. Vicious, repugnant murderous bastard who raped, tortured and killed 30 odd women. Subjectively to the victims, families and wider society a truly hideous aberration. Consider the rape of Nanking, where between 200 and 300,000 people were raped, tortured and killed by the Japanese forces. Subjectively to the victims, families and wider society a truly hideous aberration. Objectively which is worse? If you say they're equal you're... well I don't know TBH. Though no Brits involved so should be easier for you to conjure up moral and criminal perspectives.

You still haven't answered my earlier question; in the 1930's which judicial system would you wish to be processed by, the German or the British?

I find it interesting that one "side" has me as an anti British revisionist, while the other has me as a pro British apologist. Actually finding myself in such a position makes me feel better TBH as it likely means I'm working the grey in between the black and white.

uberalles · 30-12-2012 12:34pm

We should have used our potato built boats against them gemermans.

dave1987 · 30-12-2012 7:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. From your own quote; "the Luftwaffe (the German air force) had 3,000 planes based in north-west Europe alone including 1,400 bombers, 300 dive bombers, 800 single engine fighter planes and 240 twin engine fighter bombers. At the start of the battle, the Luftwaffe had 2,500 planes that were serviceable and in any normal day, the Luftwaffe could put up over 1,600 planes. The RAF had 1,200 planes on the eve of the battle which included 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes - but only 660 of these were serviceable. For a start your earlier claim of outnumbered 4 to 1 clearly fails the counting on the fingers maths test. In any event I emboldened different bits to you. They're the important parts when fighting a purely air war as this one was. How do you take down bombers(other than AA guns where again the British naturally had the advantage)? Fighter interceptors. How do you stop your bombers being taken down? Fighter escorts. The success or failure of an air war such as this will hinge on the quality and quantity of single seat fighters and each sides ability to utilise them. On this score in numbers the sides were well enough matched at the start.

How does it fail the maths test.

Luftwaffe = 2,500 serviceable aircraft
RAF = 660

2,500 / 660 = 3.787 (Which rounds upto 4)

=> Luftwaffe aircraft outnumbered RAF by 4:1

Pretty simple really and a well documented fact in various books, documentaries, films.

Wibbs wrote: »

After that the British start to pull away in advantages. They had better production and by the end of the battle of Britain they could field over 700 fighters, whereas the Germans were down to less than 400 through attrition. They had the home ground advantage. As a bomber interceptor the Hurricanes and Spitfires had the advantage with loiter time and radar vectoring and better organisation. The German fighter escorts had very little loiter time and overall range to do their job and organisation based around tactical use. Look to later in the war and from the other side as it were. When P51's were seen over Berlin it was abundantly clear the jig was up. Before really long range fighter escorts were employed by the allies, allied losses of bomber crews were scarily high and it was sheer numbers and unbelievable bravery on the part of those crews that kept it going(the fighter boys get the kudos, but IMHO the bomber crews were by far the braver. On all sides).

I was the first person to mention British production was far higher than German throughout the battle several posts back.

I totally agree with you about bomber crews of all airforces.

RAF Bomber Command losses throughout the war numbered over 55,000 air crew. Britains single largest casualty rate of any service of British forces.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually they had quite the number of experienced pilots, but too many were "flying desks" or foreign pilots like the Czechs and Poles who weren't utilised in the early stages.

Something I already said several posts before regarding Polish/Czech pilots.

Wibbs wrote: »

Right. So because I don't equate a relatively small scale, though morally repugnant criminal action by one party to a nation sized meat grinder organised slaughter by another side, I'm now a "west brit/unionist"? Good jesus.

OK let's try and break it down and remove the obvious touchy flags for some. Consider a serial killer like Ted Bundy. Vicious, repugnant murderous bastard who raped, tortured and killed 30 odd women. Subjectively to the victims, families and wider society a truly hideous aberration. Consider the rape of Nanking, where between 200 and 300,000 people were raped, tortured and killed by the Japanese forces. Subjectively to the victims, families and wider society a truly hideous aberration. Objectively which is worse? If you say they're equal you're... well I don't know TBH. Though no Brits involved so should be easier for you to conjure up moral and criminal perspectives.

You still haven't answered my earlier question; in the 1930's which judicial system would you wish to be processed by, the German or the British?

I find it interesting that one "side" has me as an anti British revisionist, while the other has me as a pro British apologist. Actually finding myself in such a position makes me feel better TBH as it likely means I'm working the grey in between the black and white.

You appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place Wibbs

Doc Ruby · 30-12-2012 8:07pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Right. So because I don't equate a relatively small scale, though morally repugnant criminal action by one party to a nation sized meat grinder organised slaughter by another side, I'm now a "west brit/unionist"? Good jesus.

For the third time, you have no clue how bad it got, because the jolly old civil service destroyed the jolly old paperwork chap. What we actually know is unbelievably nasty, god alone knows how much worse it really was. Would you like me to quote the reasons why the paperwork was destroyed? Preventing the "embarrassment of eminent persons" and all?

I wonder would even the nazis have had the gall to make such excuses had they won.

Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

Comments