Battle of Britain

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

stuart3
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:09 pm

RE: Battle of Britain

Post by stuart3 »

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hey Ormster, can you give the title of the book you've got that info from please?

Many thanks [:)]
See point 4 in this article.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... luftwaffe/



I'll get back to you on the book after I've checked if there is an English version of it.

The book is The Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited by Christer Bergström. I have purchased a copy and read far enough into it to cover his comparisons on the fighters. Bergström's comparison of the spitfire and 109 is fascinating, but his championing of the 110 seems to be quite selective. He does indeed argue that "The idea was to dispatch these twin-engined fighter aircraft in advance, at a high altitude over the intended bombing target area, to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers arrived. In fact, when used in that way, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 was quite successful", but doesn't say when or where that tactic was used successfully. It may have worked well over Poland or France against their more dated fighters, but I don't see how it could have cleared the skies over target cities during the battle of Britain. The use of the Chain Home RDF meant that there was no need for the RAF to maintain standing patrols over southern cities. Raids, including those by Bf 110s were normally intercepted by fighters vectored onto them by their controllers before they reached their targets.

Bergström also claims that turning was a defensive tactic and that diving on an enemy from height was the standard attacking technique but doesn't mention that the 110s were frequently reported by RAF pilots to have formed defensive circles or explain why an apparently successful offensive fighter plane should have found such a defensive tactic necessary.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Battle of Britain

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: stuart3

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hey Ormster, can you give the title of the book you've got that info from please?

Many thanks [:)]
See point 4 in this article.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... luftwaffe/



I'll get back to you on the book after I've checked if there is an English version of it.

The book is The Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited by Christer Bergström. I have purchased a copy and read far enough into it to cover his comparisons on the fighters. Bergström's comparison of the spitfire and 109 is fascinating, but his championing of the 110 seems to be quite selective. He does indeed argue that "The idea was to dispatch these twin-engined fighter aircraft in advance, at a high altitude over the intended bombing target area, to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers arrived. In fact, when used in that way, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 was quite successful", but doesn't say when or where that tactic was used successfully. It may have worked well over Poland or France against their more dated fighters, but I don't see how it could have cleared the skies over target cities during the battle of Britain. The use of the Chain Home RDF meant that there was no need for the RAF to maintain standing patrols over southern cities. Raids, including those by Bf 110s were normally intercepted by fighters vectored onto them by their controllers before they reached their targets.

Bergström also claims that turning was a defensive tactic and that diving on an enemy from height was the standard attacking technique but doesn't mention that the 110s were frequently reported by RAF pilots to have formed defensive circles or explain why an apparently successful offensive fighter plane should have found such a defensive tactic necessary.

Thank you for the summary, stuart3. Very helpful. I think I understand enough about the revisionist verity of Bergstrom's book now. [&o]

@Warspite1: I was positing earlier about *how* the Me-110 could have purportedly derived a 1.5:1 kill ratio in the absence of the specific documentation requested. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that it *wasn't* possible for the Me-110 in BOB, but *could have* been possible if one considered the entire war and the usage of that airframe until 1945. Again, I don't have any verifiable facts and figures in front of me to know that, just an accumulation of anecdotal and summarized reports.
Image
User avatar
Rebel Yell
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX USA

RE: Battle of Britain

Post by Rebel Yell »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why do you suggest that a post that adds nothing (other than a cryptic statement about many ((unspecificed) comments being moronic) be the final post?

There is nothing in the thread, as far as I know, that is against the rules of the forum, just a bunch of posters happy to give their views, opinions and comment on an interesting topic. So what's got you so upset you want it ended?

People are definitely welcome to opine, debate, and whatever they like. It's an internet forum.

This topic has had some intelligent points made, but there are also quite a few that make an aircraft grog cringe.

I should have stopped reading this post and never said anything, so carry on.

The OP has dropped back in and declared the Spit as winner anyway...
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17812
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Battle of Britain

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell
ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why do you suggest that a post that adds nothing (other than a cryptic statement about many ((unspecificed) comments being moronic) be the final post?

There is nothing in the thread, as far as I know, that is against the rules of the forum, just a bunch of posters happy to give their views, opinions and comment on an interesting topic. So what's got you so upset you want it ended?

People are definitely welcome to opine, debate, and whatever they like. It's an internet forum.

This topic has had some intelligent points made, but there are also quite a few that make an aircraft grog cringe.

I should have stopped reading this post and never said anything, so carry on.

The OP has dropped back in and declared the Spit as winner anyway...

Where you live, everybody has a right to their own opinion. There is also freedom of speech which has also been taken to mean the written words. But that does not mean that you have to express that opinion thus removing all doubt . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42113
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Battle of Britain

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Why do you suggest that a post that adds nothing (other than a cryptic statement about many ((unspecificed) comments being moronic) be the final post?

There is nothing in the thread, as far as I know, that is against the rules of the forum, just a bunch of posters happy to give their views, opinions and comment on an interesting topic. So what's got you so upset you want it ended?

People are definitely welcome to opine, debate, and whatever they like. It's an internet forum.

This topic has had some intelligent points made, but there are also quite a few that make an aircraft grog cringe.

I should have stopped reading this post and never said anything, so carry on.

The OP has dropped back in and declared the Spit as winner anyway...
warspite1

But you are a member of this community. If you consider yourself to be an aircraft grog too, it would have been doubly good to hear your input into this debate - certainly better than simply advocating it get shut off because you don't agree with some of the things being put forward.

Care to give your 2 cents? [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”