Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

.. so nothing can exist as a liquid in a vacuum?

Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

Einstein was not a Mathmatical Genius and failed math as a child.
He actually was very good at math but realized he was better at theoritical math than 'pure' Math.

He wasn't very good at math. In fact, the notation flaws in his 'anus mirabilis' papers are the subject of much commentary.

Einstein was good at math in the sense that he was better than most people, but he was not good at math in the sense that he contested Alan Turing, or Marcel Grossmann.

smiling Assassin wrote:Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

George Spiggott wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:Spitfires turned the tide in the Battle of Britain:

Nope. Hurricanes actually did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe in terms of materiel and personnel loss. The Luftwaffe was also poorly organised, overstretched, poorly led (by old fashioned flyboys with little real strategic grasp of what the changing of combined arms meant for the modern battlefield), and on a losing streak in terms of aircraft production vs. loss of aircraft - all meaning that if we'd just hung in there without any Spitfires, we would have still won because the Luftwaffe was destroying itself over Europe and Kent.

sA

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

Hurricanes targeted the bomber formations while the Spits mainly intercepted fighter escorts.

German High command failed to judge the situation. They never properly targeted the Chain Home stations and listening posts and systematic destruction of airfields was not followed up on.

George Spiggott wrote:Boiling is a process not a temperature.

Didn't you ever do that 'cold tea on mountains' thing at school?


BTW: Those Flash Gordon documentaries will only work until they see the 'Galaxy Quest' expose.

Cheers fellas! Makes a bit more sense now!

George Spiggott wrote:That's a bit of an oversimplification. Hurricanes did more damage because they outnumbered Spitfires two to one. Plane for plane Spitfires did more damage (the top three squadrons were Spitfire squadrons). Combined arms is irrelevant as only one arm was involved in the Battle of Britain. With or without Spitfires the plan was to hold out until the weather turned. Given how close the result was any loss of edge for the British could have turned the tide, although Operation Sealion would still have been a disaster for the Germans.

They still numerically cost the Germans more than the Spitfires did.

Combined arms is also definately not irrelevant - the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht had breezed through most of Eastern Europe, the Low Countries, and Northern France with lots of fast air and fast ground manoueveres, and they were a well oiled machine working together. Stukas did not work on London like they did in Poland - why? They didn't have the ground support to take out AA. They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44. The Germans weren't going to win anyway.

You're right though, Sealion would have flopped. (Pardon the pun)

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:They still numerically cost the Germans more than the Spitfires did.

Combined arms is also definately not irrelevant - the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht had breezed through most of Eastern Europe, the Low Countries, and Northern France with lots of fast air and fast ground manoueveres, and they were a well oiled machine working together.

It's irrelevant to the battle of Britain where only the Luftwaffe were involved. As I say it's an oversimplification (not wrong). Hurricane casulties would have been much higher (and their respective kills lower) if the Spitfires had not been there to attack defending ME109 fighters at higher altitudes, altitudes that Hurricanes could not match. A combination of both aircraft or simply more Spitfires would work, just Hurricanes alone would not.

Stukas did not work on London like they did in Poland - why? They didn't have te ground support to take out AA. They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44. The Germans weren't going to win anyway.

Stuka's (along with Me110s) were pulled out due to casualties caused by intercepting fighters long before the attacks on London started. Poland and France both had much weaker Air Forces than Britain. Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42, they were planning to build it before the BoB but chose to build the JU88 instead.

George Spiggott wrote:It's irrelevant to the battle of Britain where only the Luftwaffe were involved. As I say it's an oversimplification (not wrong). Hurricane casulties would have been much higher (and their respective kills lower) if the Spitfires had not been there to attack defending ME109 fighters at higher altitudes, altitudes that Hurricanes could not match. A combination of both aircraft or simply more Spitfires would work, just Hurricanes alone would not. Stuka's (along with Me110s) were pulled out due to casualties caused by intercepting fighters long before the attacks on London started. Poland and France both had much weaker Air Forces than Britain. Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42, they were planning to build it before the BoB but chose to build the JU88 instead.

I'd say it wasn't too irrelevant because they were surely used to flying in with some measure of impunity while the Panzers fethed around with the opponent from below.

Otherwise, yeah, you're right

(Don't hear that often around here)

sA

The great fire of London ended the great plague.

It didn't. They still teach this in schools but the great fire did not burn all the rats or whatever they say. The plague epidemic had run its course anyway, it just coincides with the great fire.

Germany had the Grief HE177 heavy bomber in '42

They were tactical aircraft - the Germans only rolled out a truely strategic bomber in '44

The Heinkel He177 Greiff was actually a 4 engined aircraft despite the fact that it only appears to have 2.
It was originally going to be a conventional 4 engined heavy, but dive bombing (ie tactical) capabilities for the aircraft!

It would be like asking Avro or Boeing to give the Lancaster or Flying Fortress dive bombing capability!

Two engines powered a single propeller (technically for the purpose of this they were notorious for catching fire.

With regard to the Ju87 Stuka and Bf110
The former were taking heavy losses so were pulled out to save them when needed to attack the Royal Navy during Operation Sealion
Have recently found out that the Bf110 was used very successfully as a fighter bomber during the Battle of Britain from fairly early on. They required fighter protection, but I am now wondering if this is where the criticism of the fighter escort that needed a fighter escort originates.

Hitler retaliating the bombing of Berlin by ordering reprisals against London. This gave time for the RAF to recover. Also, it meant that 12 Group based further north had time to get airborne to engage the Luftwaffe.
Lots of factors contributed to the Battle going the way it did, but the Hurri is special.
The design was originally rejected in favour of the Spitfire, but Hawkers decided to go ahead without MoD support.
When they saw the Hurri they changed their mind and thankfully were able to get them on strength in time.
imho this did affect the outcome, as it is unlikely that there would have been enough Spitfires at the start of the battle

While able to develop the way the Spitfire did, the Hurricane went on to serve right through the war as a front line aircraft, and operated in every theatre.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The Heinkel He177 Greiff was actually a 4 engined aircraft despite the fact that it only appears to have 2.
It was originally going to be a conventional 4 engined heavy, but dive bombing (ie tactical) capabilities for the aircraft!

You've severely muffed up your quotes there, neither of us were suggesting that the He177 was a tactical or dive bomber. Indeed the Ju88 was chosen over it because it could dive bomb and the He177 could not.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:With regard to the Ju87 Stuka and Bf110
The former were taking heavy losses so were pulled out to save them when needed to attack the Royal Navy during Operation Sealion
Have recently found out that the Bf110 was used very successfully as a fighter bomber during the Battle of Britain from fairly early on. They required fighter protection, but I am now wondering if this is where the criticism of the fighter escort that needed a fighter escort originates.

Not so, the 110 'destroyer squadrons' were pulled out of the Battle of Britain very early on as it was totally outclassed by everything it encountered. They only returned when nocturnal attacks began.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:imho this did affect the outcome, as it is unlikely that there would have been enough Spitfires at the start of the battle.

True, aircraft production is not as simple as for every Hurricane built a Spitfire is not, and vice-versa. The air ministry looked into several aircraft and the shortage of aircraft only stopped being a major issue when production of aircraft outstripped supply of pilots.

reds8n wrote:

Paul Atreides wrote:

whatwhat wrote:


The great wall of china is the only man made object visible from space. For one it's only visible against a morning or evening shadow, and for another billions of lights are far more visible up there.

Sorry to bring this up again at this point whatwhat, but are you sure?

It's not true.

You can see things like the International Space station.

If you stand on parts of our moon you could see an American flag, a plaque, several ( I think ) abandoned moon landers, same for moon buggies, and even perhaps several golf balls on the moons surface.

Further out of course, if one was to stand on Mars there's a few bits of man made things we've already started polluting worlds we haven't even been to yet, and of course in deep space there's things like Voyager.

And that's assuming we stick to the spectrum visible to eyes like ours. There's all manner of Terra originated radio and Tv etc etc transmissions arcing out across the cosmos.

As we "speak" right now vast, cold, alien intelligences much older than us could be watching old episodes of "Muffin the Mule", "Gunsmoke" and "The Lone Ranger" and wondering why we live in a monochrome world.

At least Buck Rogers and/or Lorne Green should scare them off.

*Bonanza theme tune sing along initiated"

You can see most cities and towns from space easier than you can see a really long and thin wall.

I think we can assume that this means "with the naked eye".

Is that possible then?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:I think we can assume that this means "with the naked eye".

Is that possible then?

sA

The great wall isn't really all that visible with the naked eye. It's much easier to see places like new york or significantly larger structures like the panama canal.

Hi George
The reason the He177 has 4 engines in two nacelles was purely due to the specification for the type to be used as a dive bomber. ie to allow it to be used in a tactical capacity if necessary. Barking mad but true.
For some reason the purely strategic role of the type was fudged by the top brass.

fwiw It wasn't my intention to contradict your statements but to add to them.

The Bf 110 was successfully used as a Jabo (fighter- bomber). Jabo raids often took place at low level and therefore under the radar.
The aircraft was not as successful, as you say, when used as an escort.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:fwiw It wasn't my intention to contradict your statements but to add to them.

I see. I think we're all in agreement then now.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The Bf 110 was successfully used as a Jabo (fighter- bomber). Jabo raids often took place at low level and therefore under the radar. The aircraft was not as successful, as you say, when used as an escort.

It is my understanding that the 110 performed well only during the hit and run stage (approx Dec '40 onwards). It's high speed allowed it to escape Blenhems night fighters (Blenheim kills were extremely low, in single figures IIRC).

The RDF (Radar) network only functioned over the coast. Inland, Observer Corps would track aircraft visually. Naturally this was impossible at night and as a result aircraft like the 110 operating alone performed well. It's one of the reasons Dowding was moved on from figher command after the Battle of Britain.

It is my understanding that the 110 performed well only during the hit and run stage (approx Dec '40 onwards).

That is what I thought and was surprised that the Bf110 was used in daylight Jabo raids as early as mid August during the Battle!


The early Aerial Radar sets were not very good and only had a range of a couple of miles, improved to four iirc.
This would not have been so much of a problem if the Blenheims could have been vectored by ground radar, but as you said, inland it wasn't possible.
In any case the poor Blenheims couldn't seem to catch the blighters!

But we all know that eating carrots improves your ability to see in the dark

If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:But we all know that eating carrots improves your ability to see in the dark

Yes, a fine misconception. "Spitfire pilots see better at night because they eat carrots."

Even if carrots did aid night vision (which I am to understand they do not) they would have been useless to Spitfire pilots as they did not fly at night. The exhaust of a Spitfire is mounted just in front of the cockpit and glows orange at night preventing the pilot from seeing out of the cockpit.

Cheesecat wrote:If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

It's possible I suppose. It would have to have been a much, much better plan than Sealion. I don't think there was time to come up with a better solution by '41. The whole war is really about attacking the USSR to the Germans. Things could get very grim very quickly for everyone else if Germany and the USSR never fight.

Africa was a sideshow, there were never more than a couple of Divisions (most notably 15th and 21st Panzer) in Africa.

a few Spits were used in the nightfighter role -

though not sure about it being used as such in the Battle of Britain

The What If scenario is tricky. There are so many factors to take into account. Possibly in another thread?

"Germany would have done better if Hitler had listened to his generals."
Of course if he had, France would not have been steamrollered. All his generals said you couldn't send large mechanized forces through the Ardennes. So did all the French generals. Hitler disagreed, the French didn't.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:a few Spits were used in the nightfighter role -

though not sure about it being used as such in the Battle of Britain

According to the linked article, three squadrons (about 36 aircraft) for three months in 41-42, abandoned for multiple reasons (It does mention a solution to the exhaust glow though). Dowding refused to use Hurricanes as night fighter during the Battle of Britain and Blitz for similar reasons mentioned in the article (dangerous and ineffective).

Durzod wrote:"Germany would have done better if Hitler had listened to his generals."
Of course if he had, France would not have been steamrollered. All his generals said you couldn't send large mechanized forces through the Ardennes. So did all the French generals. Hitler disagreed, the French didn't.

Sort of. There was a general belief among the generals of all powers that a lightning war was impossible, that you couldn't deliver defeat of the enemy and resolve a war between major powers in a matter of weeks. WWI had stagnated as decisive victories were unable to be capitalised on, as rail could quickly reinforce defensive positions, while additional attackers were forced to march on foot to reach the breakthrough.

You are right that Hitler didn't fully agree with this, he wanted a quick victory in the Low Countries, which would fortify the Nazi position in the West and allow them to move into their invasion of Russia. For this reason he rejected the early plan for a direct assault through the low country. von Manstein proposed an attack through the Ardennes to threaten encirclement of the Allied forces in the Low Countries, Guderian made the genius suggestion of concentrating a large amount of armour in the Ardennes drive, and not look to encircle the Allied forces in the Low countries but to drive straight into the Allied rear, destroying their lines of supply and forcing a retreat.

There were discussions that if the plan went extremely well then a follow up attack on France could be possible, but this was not seriously considered or planned for. The plan did work, remarkably and completely, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of France was basically undertaken on an ad hoc basis, the Nazis were as surprised as anyone how effectively the drive through the Ardennes had collapsed the Allied fighting capability.


One of the big misconceptions is that Blitzkrieg was some kind of great new German plan. It wasn't actually something they talked about or even considered, they believed in manoeuvre warfare and rapid attacks, but this was only really considered on the tactical level. It was only after the armoured drive through the Ardennes worked so well at the strategic level that the Nazis began to consider it as part of their attack on the Soviet Union, and when executed there the Nazis were quite bad at it, insufficient communication and organisation between Nazi regiments allowed hundreds of thousands of Russian units to escape, troops which were vital in defending Moscow later that year.


Another classic misconception is the idea that the Russians won because they had so many men. At the start of Barbarossa the combined Axis fighting strength was greater than the Soviets. Despite the much higher quality of Nazi tactical capability, the Soviets won because they had a better war machine at the operational level – their operations at Stalingrad and Kursk to draw the Nazis in before counter attacking in force along the flanks were incredibly well executed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:If Germany didn't attack Russia or Africa do you think they would have conquered England?

Maybe, it's a tough question. Sealion would never have worked, but if the Nazis were serious about invasion they surely would have had a better plan than Sealion. That said, you look at the scale of D-day, and the difficulty of executing that even when you've got complete air and sea superiority, and then you look at the Nazis inability to achieve air superiority (or even meaningfully impact RAF air capability) and the impossibility of gaining any kind of naval equivalence, let alone superiority, and I'd have to say 'probably impossible' outside of a committed, multi-year operation - something the Nazis were not politically capable of.

Patton Oswalt is NOT funny.

No, it's a fact.

A duck's quack DOES echo, it's just that the nature of the waveform makes it hard to hear the reverberation.

Krellnus wrote:
The 'air travels faster over the top of an aeroplane wing than it does under' theory is incorrect, that is in fact near-perfect zero flight conditions. All the wing has to do is force air downwards, this relies heavily on the angle of attack of the wing.

Actually I thought it was the opposite. The air doesn't travel faster over the top but furtehr. creating less pressure to suck the plane up, rather than it sitting on denser air by being forced down. Hence a wing has a longer surface over the top than underneath.


another - you can dip your unprotect finger SAFELY into a beaker of liquid nitrogen as long as you don't leave it there too long. The heat in your finger causes the liquid to vaporise so your finger is in fact creating abubble around itself. however, as the air temp around your finger drops, the bubble gets smaller until eventually it touches. Then you're in trouble.

You can make dry ice with a CO2 extinguisher. Don't try it in a glass beaker though - our chemistry teacher demonstrated it that way and sent shards of glass flying across the room