"Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
> I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the native
Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
3 America banned slavery before England.
4 America never treated its negros as second class citizens, never made them
sit at the back of the bus with all the luggage and animals etc.
5 Americans invented everything, even if they did it after everyone else,
they alone should get the credit.
6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
dead people)
7 Living in a trailer in some remote part of Arizona is far better than
living in a detached house in the London suburbs.
8 Aerosol cheese is a sensible food.
9 Having a latex lover is normal.
10 The people of Hawaii greeted the invading troops with open arms, and
begged for their freedom and self determination to be taken off them.
11 Being obese is good.
12 Having rigged elections by right wing fascists is an example to the world
in how to run a democracy.
13 Americans make everything.
14 Everybody in the world wants to be an American.
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kAkLa.607$n51.78392@no-spam
>
> "Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
>
> History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
>
> 1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the native
> Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
Ignorant dickskinner engles pretend there are no more NAs even as they
communicate(poorly) with them.
>
> 2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
As the world well knows.
>
> 3 America banned slavery before England.
America allowed blacks here as citizens long before they were finally
allowed into blighted at all.
>
> 4 America never treated its negros as second class citizens, never made
them
> sit at the back of the bus with all the luggage and animals etc.
Much the same as they're now treated in Birmingham and other points odious.
>
> 5 Americans invented everything, even if they did it after everyone else,
> they alone should get the credit.
Still lying about the first computer? See Atanasoff-Berry
>
> 6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
> dead people)
Why do so many criminals there seem to have guns while the dumbfuck lawful
citizens do not?
>
> 7 Living in a trailer in some remote part of Arizona is far better than
> living in a detached house in the London suburbs.
You rowhouse peasants have really come up in the world to finally have a
house with it's own four walls, innit? Too bad the ugly fuckers have no
insulation or central heating....
>
> 8 Aerosol cheese is a sensible food.
with nutritional values printed right on the side of the can.
>
> 9 Having a latex lover is normal.
and having a filthy engle slapper lover is disheartening and downright
nasty.
>
> 10 The people of Hawaii greeted the invading troops with open arms, and
> begged for their freedom and self determination to be taken off them.
Anything to rid themselves of royal brother fucking royal sister as though
they were engle royalty producing more inbred goons.
>
> 11 Being obese is good.
and the result of plenty unknown on the brutish isles since Hector was a
pup.
>
> 12 Having rigged elections by right wing fascists is an example to the
world
> in how to run a democracy.
I just voted you could eat me. Whoops, I almost forgot we live in a
republic where we hire others to vote for us. You didn't know it at all,
despite the many times I've told you.
>
> 13 Americans make everything.
except excuses.
>
> 14 Everybody in the world wants to be an American.
That seems rather obvious, innit.
"Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:VmlLa.69247$Io.6494315@no-spam
>
> "nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:kAkLa.607$n51.78392@no-spam
> >
> > "Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > 2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
>
> As the world well knows.
It seems you continually confuse your own pathetic microcosm of existence as
being the world, Hammond.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:46:56 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
|>
|>> I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
|>
|>History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
|>
|>1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the native
|>Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
Effectively, yes. That Germany didn't capitalize on your defeat does not mean
you weren't defeated.
|>3 America banned slavery before England.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>4 America never treated its negros as second class citizens, never made them
|>sit at the back of the bus with all the luggage and animals etc.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>5 Americans invented everything, even if they did it after everyone else,
|>they alone should get the credit.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
|>dead people)
Your crime rate is much greater than ours,
|>7 Living in a trailer in some remote part of Arizona is far better than
|>living in a detached house in the London suburbs.
Absolutely.
|>8 Aerosol cheese is a sensible food.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>9 Having a latex lover is normal.
That's not been your claim. Your claim was that it was sleazy, yet you've been
unable to provide any substance based on the definition of the word to back up
your claim.
|>10 The people of Hawaii greeted the invading troops with open arms, and
|>begged for their freedom and self determination to be taken off them.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>11 Being obese is good.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>12 Having rigged elections by right wing fascists is an example to the world
|>in how to run a democracy.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>13 Americans make everything.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>14 Everybody in the world wants to be an American.
You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that. We claim only the intellegent ones
wish this.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
> |>> I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
> |>
> |>History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
> |>
> |>1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the
native
> |>Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
>
> You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
Would you like me to remind you of your own words?
> |>2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
>
> Effectively, yes.
In the not acheiving their objectives and getting their planes shot down
way?
> |>6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
> |>dead people)
>
> Your crime rate is much greater than ours,
Lets compare murder, rape and attempted murder shall we?
"Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
> >
> > History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
> >
> > 1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the
native
> > Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
>
> Ignorant dickskinner engles pretend there are no more NAs even as they
> communicate(poorly) with them.
You are a self confessed engle are you not?
> > 2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
>
> As the world well knows.
Only your special little world.
> > 3 America banned slavery before England.
>
> America allowed blacks here as citizens long before they were finally
> allowed into blighted at all.
And when did they get to go to the same schools as white people?
> > 4 America never treated its negros as second class citizens, never made
> them
> > sit at the back of the bus with all the luggage and animals etc.
>
> Much the same as they're now treated in Birmingham and other points
odious.
Texas for example.
> > 5 Americans invented everything, even if they did it after everyone
else,
> > they alone should get the credit.
>
> Still lying about the first computer?
> See Atanasoff-Berry... as an example of something that didn't work.
See useless paper weight.
> > 6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
> > dead people)
>
> Why do so many criminals there seem to have guns while the dumbfuck lawful
> citizens do not?
Because most guns are illegal?
> > 7 Living in a trailer in some remote part of Arizona is far better than
> > living in a detached house in the London suburbs.
>
> You rowhouse peasants have really come up in the world to finally have a
> house with it's own four walls, innit? Too bad the ugly fuckers have no
> insulation or central heating....
or wheels.
> > 8 Aerosol cheese is a sensible food.
>
> with nutritional values printed right on the side of the can.
That shouldn't take up too much space.
> > 9 Having a latex lover is normal.
>
> and having a filthy engle slapper lover is disheartening and downright
> nasty.
Why is it that only people with latex lovers say things like that?
> > 10 The people of Hawaii greeted the invading troops with open arms, and
> > begged for their freedom and self determination to be taken off them.
>
> Anything to rid themselves of royal brother fucking royal sister as though
> they were engle royalty producing more inbred goons.
Did they cheer as their freedom was taken away at gun point?
> > 11 Being obese is good.
>
> and the result of plenty unknown on the brutish isles since Hector was a
> pup.
I blame the aerosol cheese.
> > 12 Having rigged elections by right wing fascists is an example to the
> world
> > in how to run a democracy.
>
> I just voted you could eat me. Whoops, I almost forgot we live in a
> republic where we hire others to vote for us. You didn't know it at all,
> despite the many times I've told you.
Why even vote anyway, republican third world bombing fascist or democrat
third world bombing fascist.
> > 13 Americans make everything.
>
> except excuses.
And decent cars, cloths, films...
> > 14 Everybody in the world wants to be an American.
>
> That seems rather obvious, innit.
Only to an American.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:02:44 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>
|>> |>> I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
|>> |>
|>> |>History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
|>> |>
|>> |>1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the
|>native
|>> |>Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
|>>
|>> You lie. Neither of us has EVER said that.
|>
|>Would you like me to remind you of your own words?
You can't. I've never said it.
|>> |>2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
|>>
|>> Effectively, yes.
|>
|>In the not acheiving their objectives and getting their planes shot down
|>way?
Britain got a lot of their planes shot down. They got them shot down much
quicker than they could replace them or the pilots needed to fly them.
Look, poo-boy. I've been trying to explain this to you. It's not said as a
insult. It's just a fact. You were whipped. You didn't have the resources to
continue the fight if Germany hadn't withdrawn when they did to concentrate
their efforts on Russia, the real threat to them at the time. You guys did that
stiff upper lip thing, and with a lot of material help from the US, came back to
contribute mightily to the final destruction of Germany, again with a lot of
help from the US - we'll leave Montgomery's blundering and posturing for another
discussion. I've always given you guys your props on this, but don't try to
blow smoke up my ass. Germany had you whipped, and in a fit of stupidity walked
away, giving you the time to rebuild and give back as good as you ever got, and
in some cases, better. Germany won the BoB, but didn't capitalize on it. That,
together with attacking Russia in winter and declaring war on the US was their
ultimate undoing. The Brits and the Russians had the heart, the US had the
industrial might. Together, we were unstoppable.
|>> |>6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
|>> |>dead people)
|>>
|>> Your crime rate is much greater than ours,
|>
|>Lets compare murder, rape and attempted murder shall we?
You're trying to do the poo-shuffle again. You said crime, not specific
subsets, but crime, as in the whole enchilada. You can't change the argument
after you've declared the parameters. I'd just about bet you were the kid that
took his ball and went home when everyone else insisted on playing by the
established rules instead of the make 'em up as you go rules you like, weren't
you?
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kAkLa.607$n51.78392@no-spam
> History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
Well said.
Ken Johnson
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kjfsfvgeka9ovi2hctbva2kuar04ddvcfc@no-spam
>
> Britain got a lot of their planes shot down. They got them shot down much
> quicker than they could replace them or the pilots needed to fly them.
>
Sorry LJ, but whilst you are correct to say that was the case in the early
days of the Battle of Britain, it was not in its later stages. Beaverbrook
had production up and the Luftwaffe were taking heavy losses. Indeed at the
close of the battle the Luftwaffe had lost far more aircraft and pilots than
the RAF did. Goring's Eagle Day turned out to be a shambles on his part.
Goring had convinced Hitler that he could destroy the RAF and hence deny the
Royal Navy air support. This would have given a better chance to the
invasion. I will agree that we were lucky to have Goring commanding the
Luftwaffe as he was not up to the task. But that is the way wars are fought
and not an indication of Britain having lost. I had family involved and was
lucky enough to discuss events with them. I have also spoken to German
pilots and have read documents were, in the later stages, they knew that
they were not winning.
> Look, poo-boy. I've been trying to explain this to you. It's not said as
a
> insult. It's just a fact. You were whipped. You didn't have the
resources to
> continue the fight if Germany hadn't withdrawn when they did to
concentrate
> their efforts on Russia, the real threat to them at the time.
There is far more to it than that, LJ. See a previous post I made to that
prat Hammond.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:43:49 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"photographer" <chrisphotographeruk@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>news:kjfsfvgeka9ovi2hctbva2kuar04ddvcfc@no-spam
|>
|>>
|>> Britain got a lot of their planes shot down. They got them shot down much
|>> quicker than they could replace them or the pilots needed to fly them.
|>>
|>
|>Sorry LJ, but whilst you are correct to say that was the case in the early
|>days of the Battle of Britain, it was not in its later stages. Beaverbrook
|>had production up and the Luftwaffe were taking heavy losses.
Yes, they were able to replace planes at speed during the latter part of the
BoB, but not experienced pilots. The lack of experienced pilots meant that
every day would see more RAF losses, and fewer Luftwaffe loss. And, the
Luftwaffe had more planes and more experienced pilots to work with during the
entire process, not to mention greater training resources on several fronts to
insure the blooding of their pilots before they were sent across the channel.
|>Indeed at the
|>close of the battle the Luftwaffe had lost far more aircraft and pilots than
|>the RAF did.
This is to be expected. The Luftwaffe pilots and crews had to fly across the
channel to reach the objective. This results it two major disadvantages.
First, any plane damaged but not destroyed during its time over Britain, still
had to make its way safely back across the channel. Second, when an RAF pilot
was shot down over Britain, it was a simple matter of hitching a ride back to
base. The opposite cannot be said for the Luftwaffe crews/pilots.
|>Goring's Eagle Day turned out to be a shambles on his part.
|>Goring had convinced Hitler that he could destroy the RAF and hence deny the
|>Royal Navy air support.
There were many German blunders involved, including the failure to capitalize on
having beaten your forces down. Note I said down, not out.
|>This would have given a better chance to the
|>invasion. I will agree that we were lucky to have Goring commanding the
|>Luftwaffe as he was not up to the task. But that is the way wars are fought
|>and not an indication of Britain having lost.
That's why I keep saying nobody actually won. Germany had beaten your forces to
the point that a real, all out assault would have been too much for them. They
had the forces in place. Yet, they failed to capitalize on this fact, withdrew
the forces and sent them to Russia, and added one more stake in the heart of
their eventual loss. It is, I believe, their greatest blunder of the war.
German arrogance cost them the victory.
|>I had family involved and was
|>lucky enough to discuss events with them. I have also spoken to German
|>pilots and have read documents were, in the later stages, they knew that
|>they were not winning.
|>
|>> Look, poo-boy. I've been trying to explain this to you. It's not said as
|>a
|>> insult. It's just a fact. You were whipped. You didn't have the
|>resources to
|>> continue the fight if Germany hadn't withdrawn when they did to
|>concentrate
|>> their efforts on Russia, the real threat to them at the time.
|>
|>There is far more to it than that, LJ. See a previous post I made to that
|>prat Hammond.
I've no argument with that. I know there's more to it, but didn't have the time
or desire to detail it, particularly when attempting any kind of real debate
with troll-boy poo, since real debate is impossible with him.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
" The lack of experienced pilots meant that every day would see more RAF
losses, and fewer Luftwaffe loss."
"when an RAF pilot was shot down over Britain, it was a simple matter of
hitching a ride back to base. The opposite cannot be said for the Luftwaffe
crews/pilots."
Neat self slap.
> That's why I keep saying nobody actually won.
We won.
> I've no argument with that. I know there's more to it, but didn't have
the time
> or desire to detail it, particularly when attempting any kind of real
debate
> with troll-boy poo, since real debate is impossible with him.
Because you keep losing.
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f8etfvgl0gmdarqvbll7279baeu5fbfu3f@no-spam
I have to respectfully disagree, LJ. Though I take into account with whom
you were sparring with;-) Whilst I am not one to say that Germany was
defeated I am inclined to conclude that Britain did win the offensive that
became known as 'The Battle of Britain'. You could say that we did not
defeat Hitler but we did defeat Goering;-) Towards the end of BOB many
Luftwaffe pilots were voicing doubts as to their ability to win. The failure
of Goering to take out the RADAR installations was fatal for the Luftwaffe.
In many ways Hitler's decision to attack Russia was, in part, a response to
his failure to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain. Whilst he would
have taken the opportunity to invade Britain, it is true that he was never
100% for such an endeavour. It took the failure of the Luftwaffe to destroy
the RAF to fully tip the balance. I have posted below a section from 'The
Battle of Britain :The Myth and Reality' by Richard Overy. Pages 121 - 126
It is evident that Hitler's view of the British problem did not alter a
great deal between the summer of 1940 and the spring of 1941. The air
battles of August and September 1940 were regarded from the German side as
just one part of a campaign that lasted almost a year to find ways of
bringing sufficient pressure on Britain to get her to give up.
The campaign included a political offensive to persuade Spain and Italy to
collaborate in destroying Britain's precarious military position in the
Mediterranean and North Africa (an effort that stumbled on Franco's refusal
to join the war, and Mussolini's decision, kept secret from Hitler, to move
into the Balkans instead by invading Greece in October 1940).
The naval war, which grew into what became known as the Battle of the
Atlantic, developed as a blockade strategy largely independent of the
invasion operation, and one that pushed the British war effort to its limit
long after the Battle of Britain. Invasion itself was always just one
option, and one for which Hitler himself had deep reservations.
It is open to debate whether the air battle of the autumn of 1940 was the
decisive factor affecting the German decision whether or not to invade.
There were other reasons for delaying. It is often forgotten that there
stood more than an air force between Hitler and conquest of Britain.
The German Navy was heavily outnumbered by the Royal Navy, even one
stretched taut by the demands of other theatres. The German Navy as a result
always remained half-hearted about the whole operation, and made its views
felt throughout the weeks of preparation. The British army may not have been
a match for the German army in the field, but it also represented a
considerable threat to a landing attempt.
The German army leadership undertook what preparations they could, but they
were faced with an operation for which there was simply no precedent in
German military history, and one for which preparation was at best
improvised. General Gunther von Blumentritt, an army staff officer assigned
to Operation Sealion, later described the preparations carried out in 1940
as woefully inadequate: 'It must not be forgotten that we Germans are a
continental people,' he wrote. 'We knew far too little of England. We knew
literally nothing of amphibious operations. At the time we were preparing
Sealion plans accounts of the campaigns of Caesar, Britanicus and William
the Conqueror were being studied. . .'~ Above all, the German leadership
recognized, as the western Allies were to realize in the invasion of
Normandy four years later, that defeat would be a political and military
catastrophe. 'It is imperative,' wrote General Alfred Jodi, Hitler's Chief
of Operations, in August 1940, 'that no matter what might happen the
operation dare not fail."
There need be no doubt that under the right circumstances Hitler was
serious about invading Britain in 1940. There remained, none the less, a
genuine ambivalence in his attitude to the British problem. He understood
how difficult the practical questions were and was keen to avoid 'risky
experiments' and 'high losses'. He confessed to an audience of Party bosses
that he was 'shy of the water', which may explain why he listened so closely
to what Raeder and the navy had to say in 1940.11
He wanted invasion to be foolproof, 'absolutely assured'. He kept the door
open to a political settlement: 'Even today the Fuehrer is still ready to
negotiate peace with Britain,' ran the minutes of a Führer conference in
January 1941.12
Hitler's view of Britain is well known: a curious blend of envy and
admiration, of contempt for her current state of decadence and respect for a
famous history. In his memoirs Adolf Galland recalled a conversation with
Hitler when he came to Berlin from the air battle in September 1940 to
collect Germany's highest military award, the oak leaves to the Knight's
Cross.
Alone with Hitler, Galland told him the unalloyed truth about how tough air
combat against Britain had proved to be. Instead of the diatribe of
contradiction he had expected, Hitler explained his respect for the
Anglo-Saxon peoples, his regret at the life-and-death struggle between the
two states - the 'world-historical tragedy' that now promised only total
destruction where there might have been fruitful collaboration.'3
It is evident that not a lot was needed to deter Hitler from the idea of
invading Britain. Fighter Command tipped the scales. The failure to destroy
the Royal Air Force ruled out the possibility of a cheap, quick end to the
war in the west and kept alive an armed anti-Axis presence in Europe.
The full significance of this outcome was not realized on the British side
as the air battle shifted to its new and more deadly phase from September
1940. But when Dowding forwarded to the Air Ministry in mid-November a
report on the previous two months of air fighting compiled by Air
Vice-Marshal Park, he began at last to develop some sense of what his force
had now achieved:
''the point to remember is that the losses sustained by the enemy were so
great that heavy day attacks by bombers were brought to a standstill and
that the Command did, in fact, win a notable victory; since, if the attacks
had not been brought to a standstill, the invasion would have been
facilitated and the war might well have been lost.'4''
It is this achievement that came to be described as the Battle of Britain.
Victory in this narrow but important sense has been explained in many ways.
German airmen were at a disadvantage attacking over enemy territory with
very limited fighter range. Fighter Command was able to draw on the
resources of the other nine-tenths of the British Isles outside the range of
the Me 109.
Even if the forward airfields had been lost permanently, British fighter
forces could still have been deployed from bases further inland, though they
might then have taken a lower toll of the enemy bomber force. The German
fighter force became tied to the bomber stream as the battle drew on,
limiting its radius of action and manoeuvrability without affording the
bombers real security from attack on the way out or the way back. All the
time Fighter Command was improving the means to identify and engage the
enemy through radar and signals intelligence.
In a great many respects, however, the two forces were remarkably matched.
Both commanded a small group of committed, highly trained and courageous
pilots; both forces responded with considerable tactical ingenuity to sudden
changes of direction in the course of the battle; both exploited fighter
aircraft at the cutting edge of aviation technology; both forces fought the
battle with Operational commanders of real distinction - Dowding and Park,
Kesseiring and Sperrie.
There were periods in the battle that favoured the German side, others in
which Fighter Command began to exact a higher toll. Every small technical or
tactical drawback suffered by one force can be matched by problems
experienced by the other.
The contest was not, of course, a draw. German air fleets did not gain air
supremacy over southern Britain, for all their skill and technical
competence. Two factors gave the edge to the
R.A.F: the balance of forces between the two sides, and the role of
intelligence.
For the whole of the battle period, the British aircraft industry out
produced the German by a considerable margin. This allowed a continuous flow
of replacements to compensate for the higher loss rates sustained by Fighter
Command. The Command grew steadily stronger between June and October. On 19
June there were 548 operationally ready fighters (with 200 more ready for
the following day); on 31 October there were 729 ready to fly, 370 in store
at a day's notice, and a further no at four days'.'5 German levels of
production and serviceability were too low to establish an effective
numerical superiority. German fighters flew in large groups with the
bombers, which gave an impression of overwhelming numbers, while Fighter
Command aircraft were divided between Groups, not all of which were in the
front line. But Dowding's system of rotation ensured that most squadrons saw
service in southern England, and that each German attack was met in
sufficient force to exact casualties.
The balance of pilots was also more favourable than the legend of the 'few'
suggests. German single-engined fighter pilots available for the battle
remained below the British figure throughout the three months of combat. The
impact of regular fighting under difficult conditions eroded combat numbers.
At the beginning of September only 74 per cent of German fighter pilots were
operationally ready, and that month pilot losses reached almost one-quarter
of the force, 23.1 per cent.'6
Moreover, and importantly, German pilots and aircrew were lost to the battle
if they were shot down and captured on British soil. Between i July and 31
October, 967 prisoners were taken and 638 bodies definitely identified. The
POWs were found to be experienced pilots. Only two had been trained since
the war. The oldest was fifty-one years old, a veteran of the First World
War; the oddest was the 47-year-old Oberleutnant Haffi von Wedel, a Berlin
history professor recruited to write the air force official history, who
was permitted to fly in combat to give his scholarship a practical
foundation. He was shot down on his twenty-fourth mission.'7 The pre-war
origin of the pilot population suggests that the German Air Force suffered
the loss during the battle of a high proportion of its cadre force. Nor was
there to be any heroic break-out from POW camps; three-quarters of those
captured were shipped overseas to Canada.'8
The true balance of forces was never properly understood on either side.
The result was a mutual misperception that played a critical part in the
conduct of the battle. Throughout the summer, indeed ever since the outbreak
of war, German Air Intelligence, run by Colonel Josef 'Beppo' Schmidt, had
greatly underestimated the size of the RAF and the scale of British aircraft
production. Across the Channel the Air Intelligence division of the Air
Ministry consistently overestimated the size of the German air enemy and the
productive capacity of the German aviation industry. As the battle was
fought, both sides exaggerated the losses inflicted on the other by an
equally wide margin. However, the intelligence picture formed before the
battle encouraged the German Air Force to believe that such losses pushed
Fighter Command to the very edge of defeat, while the exaggerated picture
of German air strength persuaded the RA F that the threat it faced was
larger and more dangerous than was actually the case.
German misperception encouraged first complacency, then strategic
misjudgement. The shift of targets from air bases to industry and
communications was taken because it was assumed that Fighter Command was
virtually eliminated. On 16 September, the day after the mauling inflicted
on the daylight bomber raids against London, Goering announced that Fighter
Command had just 177 operational aircraft left. German Air Intelligence
estimated that there were only 300 British fighters left altogether,
including reserves, and a monthly output of 250.
On 19 September Fighter Command had an actual operational strength of 656;
there were 202 aircraft in immediate reserve, 226 in preparation; output of
fighters between 7 September and 5 October was 428.'
The discrepancy was critical. German airmen were ordered to fight in
September as if Fighter Command had been all but eliminated; the reality was
a level of attrition so high that the German Air Force could not sustain it
for more than a few weeks. The casualties of this paradox were German
aircrew who fought a battle that bore little relation to the one their
commanders told them to expect.
Fighter Command, on the other hand, could not afford to be complacent. The
high losses inflicted on the German Air Force reduced the threat, but as
long as it was assumed that the enemy was much stronger there could be no
question of relaxing any particle of effort. In the western intelligence
community there existed a profound misapprehension of the scale and
character of the German air fleets, even though by August details were being
supplied regularly from 'Ultra' decrypts of German Air Force Enigma traffic.
For a long time it was assumed that each German squadron was stronger than
it actually was because the balance between reserves and operational
aircraft had not been properly understood.
American air intelligence officers calculated German aircraft output at
around 26,000 in 1940, rising to 42,000 in 1941, with at least 31,000 pilots
trained between July 1939 and December 1940 to fly them; German first-line
combat strength was estimated at 11,000, with 100 per cent reserves. British
estimates were more modest than this: Air Intelligence suggested output of
24,400 aircraft in 1940, and a front-line strength of 5,800 in August. The
true figures were far below these estimates. Aircraft output was in fact
only 10,247 in 1940 and 12,401 in 1941; German Air Force first-line strength
in September 1940 was 3,051 aircraft of all types, of which 2,054 (68 per
cent) were serviceable. Of this figure approximately 8o per cent was used
for the assault on Britain.20 Some intelligence estimates were better than
others (the Ministry of Economic Warfare was spot on with an estimate of
3,000 front-line strength, but was disregarded by the airmen). Not until the
spring of 1941 did estimates begin to approach reality. The British fought
the air battle as if it were a last-ditch struggle against an overwhelming
enemy; the German side fought against a force persistently misrepresented as
technically and tactically inept, short of aircraft, pilots and bases. This
psychological contrast put the German Air Force at a perpetual disadvantage.
The German failure to win air supremacy was beyond doubt by October as the
air conflict slowly subsided. German losses greatly exceeded those of the
RAF because of the vulnerability of bombers and dive-bombers. Between 10
July and 31 October the RAF lost 915 aircraft, the German Air Force 1,733.
Losses on both sides were soon made good. The outcome was technically a
stalemate. British forces had little prospect of re-entering Continental
Europe; German forces could not, under present circumstances, invade or
occupy Britain.
nick wrote:
> "Phxbrd" <phxbrd@no-spam> wrote in message
>
>
>>I let LJs silly claim slide, but have thought better of it.
>
>
> History and facts according to LJ and Phuxie.
>
> 1 Europeans were entirely to blame for the ethnic cleansing of the native
> Americans, the kind and friendly Americans never laid a finger on them.
>
> 2 Britain lost the Battle of Britain.
>
> 3 America banned slavery before England.
>
> 4 America never treated its negros as second class citizens, never made them
> sit at the back of the bus with all the luggage and animals etc.
>
> 5 Americans invented everything, even if they did it after everyone else,
> they alone should get the credit.
>
> 6 Gun free Britain has far more crime that the US (just ignore all those
> dead people)
>
> 7 Living in a trailer in some remote part of Arizona is far better than
> living in a detached house in the London suburbs.
>
> 8 Aerosol cheese is a sensible food.
>
> 9 Having a latex lover is normal.
>
> 10 The people of Hawaii greeted the invading troops with open arms, and
> begged for their freedom and self determination to be taken off them.
>
> 11 Being obese is good.
>
> 12 Having rigged elections by right wing fascists is an example to the world
> in how to run a democracy.
>
> 13 Americans make everything.
>
> 14 Everybody in the world wants to be an American.
>
>
Why does everyone in the world want to be an American? Even those who
claim they don't want to
be American, post to American news groups.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:31:31 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"photographer" <chrisphotographeruk@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>news:f8etfvgl0gmdarqvbll7279baeu5fbfu3f@no-spam
|>
|>I have to respectfully disagree, LJ. Though I take into account with whom
|>you were sparring with;-)
Which should have been enough for you to know you didn't really need to write
all of the below, but I appreciate you taking the time. :-)
|>Whilst I am not one to say that Germany was
|>defeated I am inclined to conclude that Britain did win the offensive that
|>became known as 'The Battle of Britain'.
I'm still more inclined to say nobody won it. IMO, and you seem to agree, on
many points, Britain survived, getting by with a little help from their friends,
to borrow from a famous Brit, because of German blundering.
|>You could say that we did not
|>defeat Hitler but we did defeat Goering;-) Towards the end of BOB many
|>Luftwaffe pilots were voicing doubts as to their ability to win. The failure
|>of Goering to take out the RADAR installations was fatal for the Luftwaffe.
|>In many ways Hitler's decision to attack Russia was, in part, a response to
|>his failure to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain.
Except Germany started moving stuff toward Russia, gearing up for the historical
repeat of the Napoleanic blunder, at the same time that they started the BoB.
Thanks for the rest of the post. I haven't had time to read the whole thing,
but I'll hang on to it til I do.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
> |>Whilst I am not one to say that Germany was
> |>defeated I am inclined to conclude that Britain did win the offensive
that
> |>became known as 'The Battle of Britain'.
>
> I'm still more inclined to say nobody won it.
Who achieved their objective, who didn't?