Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battle Of Britain, 70 Years Ago - Stunning Pics
http://gigapica.geenstijl.nl/2010/07/the_battle_of_britain.html ^ | July 19, 2010

Posted on 07/19/2010 2:18:51 AM PDT by Ayn And Milton

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Joe 6-pack
I fully agree on the quantity issue. It was as Yamamoto said, that he feared awakening the “sleeping giant.” He feared our industrial capability. Look at just this one facet, that is, aircraft carrier production:

Last carrier built before 1941, CV-8 USS Hornet. First commissioning after the war, USS Midway, CV-41. With just a handful of exceptions of Essex class carriers not completed prior to the war’s end (Oriskany CV-34 being one) you see around 30 fleet carriers (Essex and Independence CVL’s) sent into battle in 4 years. Add to that the almost 100 escort carriers (CVE’s) built, some of which went to our allies.

And that is just carriers. Add battleships, cruisers, destroyers, subs, tankers, troop transports, landing craft, PT boats, etc. etc. etc. No wonder Yamamoto feared us.

61 posted on 07/19/2010 9:00:18 AM PDT by fredhead (Liberals think globally, reason rectally, act idiotically.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
The Japanese did gain a lot of experience over China. The Zero design was an exercise in trade-offs. They exchanged armor and survivability for nimble maneuverability and speed. This served them well against the Chinese, and indeed the USN and USMC aircraft at the start of the war. The AVG was somewhat of an anomaly. It was a hand-picked, mercenary airforce consisting of some of the very best flyers available at the time. While the P-40 lacked some things when compared to the Zero, it also had some strengths that could be exploited in the very capable hands of the AVG.

Keep in mind that America's highest scoring air ace of all time, Richard Bong, drove a P-38 Lightning to work in the Pac theater, which lacking the maneuverability of a Zero more than matched it in speed, armament and protection (to say nothing of engine redundancy).

By the time the Corsair, Wildcat, and to a lesser extent the Thunderbolt and Mustang arrived in the Pacific in quantity, Japanese forces had been greatly attrited, and in fact, Kamikaze tactics said every bit as much about the capabilities of Japanese pilot replacement and training programs as they did about bushido.

Of course, another interesting aspect of the Pacific war is that rather than shooting down one plane at a time, the sinking of a carrier could get rid of a lot of enemy planes and even pilots in one fell swoop. If you were positioned to absorb and replace those losses (i.e. the US) you could survive them. If you weren't (i.e., Japan), your naval air campaign became an exercise in diminishing returns.

62 posted on 07/19/2010 9:12:47 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ayn And Milton

Great pix, thanks for posting. A BTT for the morning crew.


63 posted on 07/19/2010 9:14:43 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill; Ayn And Milton

another bump for a great thread


64 posted on 07/19/2010 5:02:29 PM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

65 posted on 07/19/2010 5:05:36 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin (A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mware

Battle of France (in the air) isn’t it?


66 posted on 07/19/2010 6:50:14 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin (A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
The Zero design was an exercise in trade-offs.

I read years ago that the design was stolen from Howard Hughes.

67 posted on 07/19/2010 6:54:34 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin (A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ayn And Milton

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable can calibrate me on this:

In the middle of those pics there’s one of a flight of a dozen Supermarine Spitfires. It looks to me like all of them have two-bladed props. Isn’t it true that these would be a fairly early variant of the Spitfire? Initially they had this two-bladed prop with a Rolls-Royce (Griffon?) engine, but I think they fairly quickly changed that to a 3-bladed prop and a more powerful (Merlin?) Rolls-Royce in it.

Am I right about that?


68 posted on 07/19/2010 7:15:55 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Generically, two-bladed props are longer and can fly a plane faster (there are exceptions) when level.

Three-bladed props are shorter, giving more ground clearance (essential for operating out of bombed or dirt runways) and faster climbing speeds.


69 posted on 07/19/2010 7:21:17 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer

The Germans stole the H-1 design, the Japs stole it...everybody wanted it except the U.S. Army because Hughes didn’t stop at a military base to meet with one general on his record-breaking **non-stop** transcontinental flight.

The H-1 had the range and speed to have protected U.S. B-17’s flying from Britain to bomb Germany years before the P-51 was ready. Lots of lives were lost because one general “felt” snubbed by Billionaire Hughes...


70 posted on 07/19/2010 7:31:15 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin
Yes that clip from the series was pre Dunkirk.

Later in the series they focused on the Battle of Britain.

71 posted on 07/19/2010 7:49:46 PM PDT by mware (F-R-E-E, that spells free, Free Republic.com baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mware

I must have just seen the first part, then. I didn’t remember seeing any segments after Dunkirk.


72 posted on 07/19/2010 8:58:30 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin (A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: calex59
However, the early Hurricanes had one big downside: you better bail out FAST if the plane caught on fire. Because of its design, the early Hurricanes had a lot of inflammable parts and burned rather quickly when hit.

The biggest downside to the early Hurricanes was the relatively slow top speed of only 323 mph for the Mk. I models, which meant Hurricane pilots had to be very careful not to be out-zoomed by Bf 109E or be forced to fly at lower altitudes, where the Hurricane's excellent maneuverability gave it a fighting chance. That's why the Spitfire was tasked with shooting down fighters and the Hurricane was tasked with shooting down bombers.

73 posted on 07/19/2010 9:17:26 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Im not so sure about that. The spitfire was good, no doubt about it, but the Hurricane, although not as fast as the Me109 (10-30mph slower, depending on conditions) could out-turn it, was easier and more forgiving to fly, and was easier to maintain and build. Its biggest advantage though was that Luftwaffe pilots underestimated it. “Tired old puffers” was a typical disdainful response. Actually a lot of Me-109s were shot down by the “tired old puffers”. Even so, the important objective was to shoot down bombers, without which no invasion could have happened, and the Me-109s, even if they could outfight the hurricanes, were incapable of protecting the bombers all the time - coordination was too poor and the Me-109’s just did not have the endurance.


74 posted on 07/21/2010 4:16:58 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
Very good question. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the Germans were in the war for longer than anyone else. They really started in 1937 in Spain with the Condor legion, going on to 1945 (8 years) whereas the Brits only did six and the americans only four, effectively. Basically, the germans were fighting longer and therefore had more time to notch up scores.

Secondly, as the war turned against Germany, it became increasingly difficult for allie pilots to even find german planes to shoot down! Contrariwise, the few german planes flying had no problems in finding enormous numbers of allied aircraft. Quite simply, the germans just fought more air battles.

Thirdly, its very important for intelligence to know how many enemy aircraft have been destroyed but very difficult to confirm kills through all the confusion and the false claims and the multiple claims. The Brits were probably the strictest in confirming kills before assigning them to an individual pilot, requiring the greatest level of confidence that the enemy aircraft had actually been shot down. Conversely the Germans were undoubtedly the slackest at this, assigning even marginal possibles as definite kills.

Fourthly, the luftwaffe very much had an "Ace" culture. German Aces (experten) were cosseted and feted. Other members of the squadron were expected to follow the lead of the experten and basically help them build up big scores, while taking all the chances and providing better targets for enemy aircraft (basically dying more). In contrast the RAF (and the USAF too for that matter) operated much more on a teamwork basis.

Fifthly fighters dont just gain air superiority. They also have other duties - escorting bombers, ground strafing, and so on. Luftwaffe pilots, with all the emphasis on "big scoring" tended to consider this kind of stuff as "beneath them" and either ignored it or skimped on it. Conversely allied fighter pilots were expected to do close support and ground attack if required and that was that!

75 posted on 07/21/2010 4:38:35 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
"whereas the Brits only did six and the americans only four, effectively. Basically, the germans were fighting longer and therefore had more time to notch up scores."

I had considered that, but that is what appears odd to me: I would have thought the Brits, since they were fighting longer, would have had a larger number of high-scoring aces as compared to the Americans, but that doesn't really appear to be the case.

"as the war turned against Germany, it became increasingly difficult for allie pilots to even find german planes to shoot down!"

This also should have contributed to more Brit aces, since they initially had the Germans "all to themselves." As the war progressed more and more American pilots were looking for fewer and fewer german planes.

"Conversely the Germans were undoubtedly the slackest at this, assigning even marginal possibles as definite kills."

I recently read a book from the German point of view "Jagdgeschwader 26" was the title, I believe. In many cases the author was able to compare Allie claims and German claims for the same battle. The author made it sound as if the allies were constantly claiming twice the number of victories as they actually achieved. I guess gun cameras aren't always definitive.

With my original question I was really asking if the RAF operations/tactics were significantly different from the Americans and could those differences account for the apparent disparity in the number of high-scoring aces? Or did different assigned responsibilities offer the Americans more opportunities? Thank you for your answer; you pointed out several things that I did not know.

76 posted on 07/21/2010 6:32:37 PM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Len Deighton novel titled “Bomber”

Bomber is the greatest novel I have ever read.

77 posted on 07/21/2010 6:54:41 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Hartmann did not start flying combat until 1943.


78 posted on 07/21/2010 6:56:49 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
He was on the Eastern front before that. His first kill was in November '42.
79 posted on 07/21/2010 7:03:37 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Thank you for that correction. But the second of his 342 victories did not come until 1943. Thus, he had roughly 2 years to achieve his record.


80 posted on 07/21/2010 7:33:58 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson