Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Battle of Britain
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Babs (U14619307) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
I have just watched the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Battle of Britain programme with Ewan McGregor and his brother. This was an absolutely fantastic and interesting programme. Also the two brothers were so nice and it was so easily understood. So fantastic to see the Spitfire, such a moving programme. Well done.
-
Message 2
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
Hi Babs,
I agree with you, an excellent programe
Regards
Spike -
Message 3
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 20th September 2010
Its been a good series, I hope they bring it all out as DVD box set
-
Message 4
Posted by Mike (U13308512) on Monday, 20th September 2010
I have to agree, what a great, well made, and informative program.
I wonder when will the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ do as much to celebrate the other heroes of the RAF in WWII, the men of Bomber Command?
Whenever Churchill's tribute to "The Few" is shown you never hear the next sentance, which describes the effort of the men of Bomber Command.
"All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day; but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power."
It is still fashionable to demean the efforts of the Nomber Command, yet they were as brave, and maybe braver than the fighter pilots. The cost was enormous though with over 55,000 men lost in Bomber Command over the course of WWII. More aircrew were lost in the single raid on Nuremberg on the 30th of March 1944 (537) than in the whole of the Battle of Britain (498).
That raid was my Father's first operational flight, the aircraft damaged by flak and attacked by a night-fighter before they got home safely. See his story at
From 65 years in the future, the idea of setting out to drop bombs on targets often in the midst of civilian populations out of dark skies based on flimsy navigational aids seems like a terrible thing to have done. At the time though it employed every technology available and required the utmost guts and determination to see through from the men tasked with flying the aircraft, so many of whom never returned.
The men of Bomber Command played their full part in the Allies victory against the tyranny that was Nazi Germany. Be proud of them, now and forever. -
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 20th September 2010
Absolutely. It is a total disgrace that a campaign medal was never awarded to the men of Bomber Command for their role in the Strategic Air Offensive against Germany from 1940-45. Let us hope that the proposed memorial to them in Green Park is both suitable and fitting.
-
Message 6
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 20th September 2010
Rightly or wrongly I very much doubt whether Bomber Command will ever achieve the kudos of the fighter pilots of 1940.
They were deliberately bombing civilians and the question of whether they helped to win the war continues to be hotly debated. -
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 20th September 2010
I agree with all the above..
And the business about Bomber Command brought home to me yet again the impact of a personal trauma when I started Secondary School and was almost viciously exposed to ridicule by my form teacher.. We all knew that he had been in the RAF and had been in the hands of the Gestapo for four years.. Presumably that meant that he was shot down on one of those missions.
I confirmed this in 1999 with a fellow Old Boy who ended up working for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ World Service.. He had learned German A Level with this teacher, so he volunteered when the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ needed someone to interview some German guests. After a couple of evenings when the guests burst into tears and ran out, his controller came to tell him that they were distraught because he was using Gestapo German.
Long shadows.
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by Brofessional (U14619973) on Monday, 20th September 2010
I really enjoyed the McGregor Battle of Britain programme too. My one quibble with the programme and the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ coverage of the Battle of Britain in general is the, seeming, lack of acknowledgement of the contribution of airman from outside of the United Kingdom.
While Keith Park has been mentioned, the fact that he was a New Zealander has been totally ignored along with the fact that of the RAF's top ten aces from the Battle of Britain, only five were British. The highest scoring ace was a Czech while the other non-British members of the 'top ten' consisted of a Pole, an Australian and two New Zealanders. -
Message 9
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
I too enjoyed the programme - reminising about their childhood together, about the Spifire & Hurricane etc.
Though the programme was spoilt by a few 'howlers'!
While talking to the 'classic' aircraft airman it was mentioned that the Spitfire flew at nearly 400 mph 'Wow' he explaimed 'I didn't know it went that fast' - know it didn't at thne BoB that was the later version!
Quite rightly Park was mentioned as the main tactician for the RAF heading as he did 11 Group. But, it was said his methods were opposed by Bader! Who wanted to use his 'big wing'.
But Bader was a mere Squadron Leader, Park was in reality 'opposed' by Leigh-Mallory of 12 Group, whose 'big wing' didn't turn up to protect Park's airfields!
How Stephen Bungay must have cringed. -
Message 10
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
posted by CASSEROLEON
After a couple of evenings when the guests burst into tears and ran out, his controller came to tell him that they were distraught because he was using Gestapo German.Β
Cass,
What is "Gestapo German" in the term of "He had learned German A Level with this teacher, ..."?
This doesnΒ΄t suits, because he might have spoken in "Gestapo manners", but not in any way of language, except some professional terms when "theyΒ΄ve questioned prisoners".
Regards
Thomas -
Message 11
Posted by Mike (U13308512) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
The men of Bomber Cammand were bravely following the orders given to them and dieing in large numbers while doing so. Their treatment after the war ended was shabby in the extreme and remains so today, another classic case of applying 21st century morals to a historic situation.
As for whether they made a difference, this - might be worth reading. -
Message 12
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
I was hugely impressed by the programme too, and I spotted the error regarding "400 mph" as well.
No mention seemed to be made of how crucial it was to achieve height before the enemy arrived (hence the huge importance of the radar system), although this strange lack was corrected in a passing way towards the end. -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
Thomas B
As I was not taught German by this particular teacher- or any other, for my sins- I am in no position to enlighten you.. And as you were not born until the 1960's I dare say people in Germany had managed to eradicate it along with other aspects of Nazism.
I can only speculate that it may have been something not totally unsimilar to wife's use of English that seems to me to reflect the rather categoric and authoritarian nature of the French language as shaped, possibly for all time, by the absolutist "old regime".. Hence with my wife everything is a case of "must do" and the answer to the question "when?" is always "now".
All I can say is that my informant, who subsequently rose to be Head of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ World Service- and therefore generally a reliable source- said that this was the term employed by the Head of the German Section to him as a junior member of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.
By the way- the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ connection was that our History teacher had been the original Uncle Mac on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ in the Thirties, and invented characters like Larry the Lamb. It was through his connections that this particular Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ career was launched.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
Cass,
I rather believe that this term "Gestapo German" is an English creation for the stereotypes of Gestapomen, perverting the German language. What we really have, and also had then is what we call "Amtsdeutsch" (office German). Which is a term to describe particular using of professional words and writing style in official letters and within the administration.
As the Gestapo was a branch of the then German Police, they had to use that "Amtsdeutsch" as well, but there was no creation of an whole different use of language by them as by other normal offices. They might had have some special words or abriviations in their own internal use, but nothing else.
It is an attitude to use a language, but not to create one, as your example from the experiences of your wife shows as well. There has always been different ways in using languages, either more in order style or civil style.
The whole story youΒ΄ve told seems rather odd to me, for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ had have some German speaking Emigrants from Germany and Austria who surely had avoided the use of German language in the style youΒ΄re referring to, for the Germans might had not listen to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ during the war. -
Message 15
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
I enjoyed the MacGregor Battle of Britain programme, there might have been the odd error but they were only minor ones. It was certainly far better than the David Jason programme the week before as that seemed to be mainly footage of him riding around on his motorbike.
I am sure they acknowledged the contribution by other nationalities a number of times. The programme was built around the memories of some surviving pilots, perhaps they should have one foreign one but they were quite likely chosen for their ability to get the story over rather balancing up with a mixture of nationalities. I wonder also if the Polish and Czech pilots tended to be slightly older so not as many around now? -
Message 16
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
Catman you have reminded me I must read Bungays book - its very highly thought of I believe.
-
Message 17
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
I was lucky - I bought Bungay's book in a Hay-on-Wye bookshop for a pound!
I found it well researched, informative, easy to read - but not too bland - he isn't afraid to share his opinions. -
Message 18
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
Though the programme was spoilt by a few 'howlers'! Β
I won't say it spoilt the programme for me - far from it - but I did notice that their 'Messerschmitt Bf 109' was actually an Hispano Ha 1112-M1L. The Ha 1112 was a Spanish production Bf 109 (to be specific, a late war 109G, I believe) which was fitted (somewhat ironically) with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, hence the mangling of its nose. It was Ha 1112s they used in the 'Battle of Britain' movie - indeed, I believe the one appearing in the programme was a veteran of the movie. -
Message 19
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
Did you see the BoB 'Real story' tonight?
Very interesting, I thought, especially the comparison between the Spitfire and the ME109. Any real accounts I have read would indicate the ME109 was the slightly better fighter, with a fuel-injected engine, and more especially in the amount of metal it could throw, but that programme seemed to indicate a definite superiority.
The diary readings, especially the stuff about German pilots sitting 'at readiness' to defend against bomber attacks on their airfields was interesting as well. I knew about the bombing raids on the barges, but never heard of a sustained effort against the airfields.
They even owned up that the 109s they were showing were not the ones used in the battle! -
Message 20
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
giraffe47,
Surely the advantages mentioned amount to far more than a "slight edge" over the capabilities of the Spitfire, viz:
(a) Fuel-injected engine.
(b) Armaments that allowed firing for up to 55 secs (versus Spitfire's 14.7 secs).
(c) Cannon in addition to machine-guns.
The various accounts gave support to my earlier point that achieving height in advance of the enemy's arrival was crucial for any degree of success in fighter battles. -
Message 21
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
Yes, the Bf 109's two 7.92 mm machine guns had a 1000 rounds each, good for 55 seconds. But two machine guns was a WWI standard of armament and not very effective in 1940.
The two 20-mm MG-FF cannon in the wings only 60 rounds each: 7 seconds worth of ammunition. They did give the Bf 109 an edge in firepower (certainly against bomber targets) but the pilot had to be very careful not to waste that ammunition. -
Message 22
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:57 GMT, in reply to LairigGhru in message 20
Apparently the 20mm cannon intended to be fitted to fire through the spinner on the Bf 109s was frequently not fitted in the 'E' variant (the main type at the type of the Battle of Britain) as it caused vibration problems. It wasn't until the 'F' series of 109s was introduced in late 1940 that the problem was solved. However, the 'E' version still had the two 20mm cannon mounted in the wings; I do wonder why they dropped those from the 'F' version onwards.
I will try to watch the 'real story' programme on iPlayer (was watching Midsomer Murders instead, I'm afraid...). -
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
First, the advantage over cannon over machine gun; The comparative slow rate of fire from the cannon plus the relative size of a small fighter target did not necessarily give the advantage to the attacker. Any pilot will tell you that an aircraft under normal circumstances moves about quite a lot in the air, in combat this is exaggerated making it difficult to hit another aircraft that is also taking avoiding action, (gravity plays a far more important role in this than some people imagine)thus the concept of multi machine guns that 'sprayed' an area with the prospect of making this easier. Also taken into consideration was the relative skill of the pilot. Deflection shooting in most cases has to be taught and it was imagined that our pilots would not have too much time to devote to this art. Thus again it was envisioned that the chances of a novice hitting a target is greatly increased with multi-guns.
I have read reports (from both sides)that against a small fighters cannon fire was not very effective in combat - even in the Korean War the Americans armed the Sabre with .50 calibre machine guns; against the large slower bomber those principles are of course reversed.
The real advantage that the Bf 109 had over our fighters was that almost invariably they had the height advantage. They could dive onto ours that were still struggling to obtain height, give then a squirt as the passed then dive into comparative safety. Dog-fights were avoided in general by the German because of the fuel situation. But, in a tight turning circle as has been written and proved so many times the Spitfire had a slight advantage because the shape of the wing meant that it could fly closer to the high-speed stall than the Bf 109; provided the skill and training of the pilot allowed him such a luxury. Pilot visibility was better in the British aircraft and an ex German fighter pilot has said that both our fighters were childishly easy to fly and land. Important when considering depreciation.
Quite frankly this argument could go on indefinitely so long as authors want to make a little money, but the truth is that German fighter tactics were to begin with anyway superior to ours. After all they had had much more practice.
Contrary to what our man said on the telly, machine gun fire against the fighter was quite effective. A few bullets in a vulnerable place could remove an aircraft from the fight just as quickly as the odd hit from a cannon shell.
On the question of ammunition, it must be remembered that the British fighter was designed purely as a defensive weapon to be operated close to their home airfields. Thus it was envisioned that rapid turn round times for our fighters would be sufficient to meet any threat.
Against the bomber machine gun fire was not so effective especially from long range(British guns were synchronised at 800 yards) and many pilots observed their bullets bouncing off of Ju 88's at this sort of range. It was necessary to get in close to destroy a bomber quickly and this of course subjected the attacking pilot to other dangers, so the longer range cannon would certainly have been a distinct advantage.
Regards. -
Message 24
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
Well thats all very interesting!
-
Message 25
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
That is what I was trying to say, Lairig - the 'slight edge' remark was based on my perception from previous reading, etc.
This program was the first I have seen that actually listed the advantages of the ME109 honestly and realistically, and concluded that it had a considerable edge.
The superior management and tactics of the RAF may have negated this advantage to a great degree, especially as the battle moved to London, at the ME109's extreme range. Getting the Hurricanes (a steadier gun platform) to go for the bombers (the main target) while the Spits tried to keep the fighters occupied was one way to maximise the effect of a smaller fighter force. -
Message 26
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
You may recall the scene in the 1968 BoB film where a Luftwaffe officer asks Goering for a squadron of Spitfires (!)
Was this complete fiction or based on fact? -
Message 27
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
The remark was real. It was Adolf Galland. You can look him up.
The Czech and Polish pilots did not fare well when they returned home, where Uncle Joe Stalin was not keen on their story being known. They mostly had a an even harder life than the rest of their compatriots under Warsaw Pact fraternity, as depicted in the film, "Dark Blue World." -
Message 28
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
I bought our first piano from one of the Polish airmen who settled in South Croydon and set up business around piano tuning and servicing, teaching piano and trading pianos.. I remember going to see the piano as advertised, and finding a board with his Memorabilia just in the entrance hall that he showed me with justifiable pride..
He also wrote books on music-- and gave me one. It seems to be lost somewhere in our loft.
I am pretty sure that I saw the family name in the Croydon newspaper a few months ago in reference to a young British soldier on parade in the town after a tour of duty in Afghanistan. He told the paper that he felt sad that his grandfather had died a few months before and so did not see him back from "doing his bit".
I suppose time is taking its toll..
But perhaps it is also important that the Battle of Britain did not save Poland as directly as it saved Great Britain. The Poles had a long road to travel with many other heroic struggles..in an often heroic history.
Cass -
Message 29
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
A lot depends on the target. In 1940, most combat aircraft carried little armor plate and self-sealing fuel tanks were primitive. Although Dowding wisely pushed for the installing of armorglass windscreens in fighters, commenting that he didn't see why his pilots could not have them if gangsters in Chicago did. He was well aware that the Germans would sooner or later do the same, and the .303 would lose much of its effectiveness. He therefore planned to adopt the French 20-mm Hispano cannon, but the Battle of Britain was over before a reliable installation was produced. Fortunately, most German aircraft used in the Battle were deficient in protection.
Against largely unprotected aircraft, the rifle-calibre machine gun was still effective, although only marginally so. Especially German bombers could survive hundreds of hits. One of the controversies during the battle was about the proper adjustment of the guns: The official "Dowding spread" aligned a fighter's guns to converge 400 yards (not 800) ahead, longer than typical distance to the target, so that a shotgun effect was created to increase the probability of hits. Experience indicated a need to "harmonize" the guns to concentrate firepower at much shorter distance, while pilots where told to open fire at much shorter distances than pre-war assumptions: 300 yards at most, with 100 or less being recommended.
Such changes take time. The RAF decided in 1934 to retain the .303 calibre when it replaced the old Vickers machine gun by the more reliable and faster-firing Browning. By late 1938 tests had revealed that a more powerful weapon was needed and the adoption of the 20-mm Hispano became urgent: Yet the Battle of Britain was fought almost entirely with the .303. -
Message 30
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
In service, the Bf 109E actually never had the centreline MF-FF installed: Allied intelligence and a lot of post-war writers were misled by an air inlet in the center of the propeller spinner. The installation was indeed unreliable.
The F series had entirely new wing: Easily recognizable because of the rounded wing tips and different radiator installation, it was thinner and had more efficient aerodynamics, but also a simplified internal structure. It took about a third less time to build a Bf 109F than a Bf 109E, a quite important saving. Eliminating internal wing armament saved a lot on cut-outs, reinforcement frames and access panels. And the centreline cannon, which on the bulk of Bf 109Fs was the much better MG 151/20, was also easier to aim.
Guns could still be installed in underwing gondolas, at what was considered a minor penalty in extra weight and drag. -
Message 31
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
I believe most 109 pilots thought the 109F was THE best of the lot. If I had a choice it would have been mine.
All very interesting - the RAAF armed its Sabres with 2 x 30mm Adens instead of the 6 x 50cal machine guns the US used - what was better? Who knows? Part of the book "Ascent" (a fictional acount of a Soviet pilot) mentions that the Mig15 was meant to bring down B29s and B36s , and could do that very well, but against fighters the 37mm + 2x23mm combination was less effective - despite 1 hit from the 37mm being enough to bring down a US fighter... -
Message 32
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Friday, 24th September 2010
Reply message 29
Such changes take time. The RAF decided in 1934 to retain the .303 calibre when it replaced the old Vickers machine gun by the more reliable and faster-firing Browning. By late 1938 tests had revealed that a more powerful weapon was needed and the adoption of the 20-mm Hispano became urgent: Yet the Battle of Britain was fought almost entirely with the .303.
The RAF realised earlier than '38. Hence the spec. in 1935 for a cannon armed fighter - which led to the Whirlwind, though not produced in time for the BoB. Designs by Boulton-Paul for a single engined aircraft were well thought of, but the Treasury would only fund two prototypes not the five the RAF wanted (two Westland, two Bolton-Paul Hecules & Vulture, and one Supermarine twin. -
Message 33
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 24th September 2010
All very interesting - the RAAF armed its Sabres with 2 x 30mm Adens instead of the 6 x 50cal machine guns the US used - what was better? Who knows?Β
There is little doubt that the cannon armament was better. The USAF had retained the traditional .50 armament of WWII on its post-war jet fighters (in the form of the faster-firing Browning M3) but combat experience in Korea was a serious disappointment. Often it took several long, accurate bursts to down a MiG-15. Colonel Eagleston complained that of all MiGs hit by their fire, two thirds still managed to fly away. On the other side, the Soviet veteran Pepelyaev commented that MiGs routinely returned to base with 40 or 50 hits.
The USAAF reacted with the "Gun Val" project, which modified a few Sabre's to evaluate 20-mm cannon: Either the M24, an American derivative of the French Hispano, or the T160, a development of the more modern German MG 213C revolver cannon. Results were positive despite problems with gun gas ingestion, but the new guns could not be introduced in time to make a difference for the war.
The Aden was another offshoot of the MG 213C, this time in its 30-mm version. Canada's choice for 30-mm guns may have been driven by the probable route of Soviet bombers to target in the US, over the pole. -
Message 34
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 25th September 2010
i read an interesting book on the mistakes of the BoB (hindsight of course)
the main gripe was the fact that we used 303 guns in our aircraft
the 303 bullets could pass through an aircraft and unless it hit a vital point ie fuel tanks or a pilot - the enemy plane could sustain the damage as the bullets would go straight through
wheras a cannon shell would explode and catch fire wherever it hit - not neccesarily in a vital point - not sure how true this is but it sounds plausible
just incidentally - another point was that the german planes in france could be seen taking off and circling to gain height before they made the channel hop - at no time did we attack them over their own airfields when they were sitting ducks
st -
Message 35
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 25th September 2010
Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:01 GMT, in reply to Mutatis_Mutandis in message 30
The F series had entirely new wing: Easily recognizable because of the rounded wing tips and different radiator installation, it was thinner and had more efficient aerodynamics, but also a simplified internal structure. It took about a third less time to build a Bf 109F than a Bf 109E, a quite important saving. Eliminating internal wing armament saved a lot on cut-outs, reinforcement frames and access panels. And the centreline cannon, which on the bulk of Bf 109Fs was the much better MG 151/20, was also easier to aim.Β
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Still left the Bf 109 with just two machine guns and a single cannon, but it seems to have managed perfectly well. The post BoB Fw 190 typically managed with two 13mm machine-guns in front of the cockpit and two 20mm cannon in the wings (though some earlier models in the 'A' variant had four cannon in the wings and two MGs!) Interestingly, by the end of the war, the Me 262 'Schwalbe' (Swallow) jet fighter had abandoned machine-guns altogether and typically relied on a formidable armament of four 30mm cannon mounted in the nose; these could reportedly bring a bomber down in a single burst, and a lone Me 262, which could additionally be equipped with 24 rockets, could cause havoc amongst a bomber formation. However, arguably bombers were the biggest threat by that stage, and I suppose to some extent the designers bore that in mind.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.