# Dowding and the back-stabbing and plotting against him.



## GT (Jul 18, 2005)

Update.


----------



## GT (Aug 11, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 3, 2022)

This topic appears to have died, which is rather a shame. So I`ll leave some contentous documents here to restart deliberations.

After "leaving his post" Dowding wrote a lengthy report giving his views on the Battle of Britain, the report was classified until the war had ended,
but, even during the war, its obvious that his report was seen as too direct to even share outside of the Ministry, here Portal writes to Churchill
admitting that Dowding was right that many senior people had not recieved his report due to an "oversight", which, amazingly,
was a very organized mistake which only prevented his report from being seen by people outside of the Air Ministry.

How amazingly convenient.

Dowding, in his report, critisises the appointment of certain officers, and also admits that the real speed of a sample of six squadron hurricanes
at 18,000 feet, was actually a mere 304mph, with the Spitfire 340mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 4, 2022)

More correspondance linked to Dowdings own report on the Battle of Britain, which was censored from the public until the war was over (ostensibly because it talked about radar).

The Air Ministry appears to have "sat on it" for as long as possible, even regarding internal distribution, and reading the comments from others on his first draft we can build up a picture of why.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 4, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> Dowding, in his report, critisises the appointment of certain officers, and also admits that the real speed of a sample of six squadron hurricanes
> at 18,000 feet, was actually a mere 304mph, with the Spitfire 340mph.



The speed tests were done at the Squadron level (54 and 157) and not at a proper, scientific establishment like the A&AEE. Even in reports from 'lesser' establishments like the AFDU they often caveat their speed figures with disclaimers such as 'these speeds are approximate / figures are based on check trials from this unit / official figures have not yet been released from Boscombe Down' etc.

Dowding's report also has the average speeds at 10,000 and 15,000 feet, and I find it noteworthy that these lower-altitude speeds agree well with official A&AEE numbers. The speeds at the 'optimum' 18,000 ft altitude are the problem, being little different than the 15,000 ft figures. It seems to me this might indicate a calculation / measurement error somewhere.

I'd say his criticism of a 335 mph Hurricane I speed is valid enough. Maybe a Hurricane II number crept in the Air Ministry publication he's referencing ...

Lines are quick sketches of A&AEE tests. *Hurricane at 'overload' 6750 lb* -- *Spitfire at 6050 lb*
Red dots are Dowding's '6-plane-average' Squadron tests. No weights given.





*EDIT**:* new image with mph numbers in correct position

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 4, 2022)

Greyman said:


> The speed tests were done at the Squadron level (54 and 157) and not at a proper, scientific establishment like the A&AEE. Even in reports from 'lesser' establishments like the AFDU they often caveat their speed figures with disclaimers such as 'these speeds are approximate / figures are based on check trials from this unit / official figures have not yet been released from Boscombe Down' etc.
> 
> Dowding's report also has the average speeds at 10,000 and 15,000 feet, and I find it noteworthy that these lower-altitude speeds agree well with official A&AEE numbers. The speeds at the 'optimum' 18,000 ft altitude are the problem, being little different than the 15,000 ft figures. It seems to me this might indicate a calculation / measurement error somewhere.
> 
> ...


There were a lot of serious problems at the time with predicting engine power correctly at high altitude, as Britain didnt really have 
any seriously effective artificial altitude engine test cells (the RAE cell was undersized, not particularly good and broken down half the time)

So I suspect the issue wasnt that the aircraft were just "no good", but that the predicted speeds were probably less and less
reliable as altitudes rose. Having said that, fit and finish was frequently terrible and RAE studies I have of several Spitfires
shows some quite marked under-performance, which was put down principally to very bad panel fits (the photos are 
quite revealing).

So if Dowdings figures show reasonable agreement at lower altitudes, I dont think that is necessarily either surprising or indicative
that the results for 18,000 feet are to be discounted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 4, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> So I suspect the issue wasnt that the aircraft were just "no good", but that the predicted speeds were probably less and less
> reliable as altitudes rose. Having said that, fit and finish was frequently terrible and RAE studies I have of several Spitfires
> shows some quite marked under-performance, which was put down principally to very bad panel fits (the photos are
> quite revealing).



A common symptom it seems of production going into emergency overdrive. The Soviets noted this performance/quality dip in their fighters in 1942, and of course the disasters that could be found in end-of-war-produced German aircraft (healthy dose of slave labour and straight-up sabotage to assist there).

It wouldn't surprise me at all of there was a dip in Hurricane / Spitfire quality during the dark days of 1940 -- but as anecdotes seem to indicate, it wasn't enough to shake fighter pilot confidence in their aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> This topic appears to have died, which is rather a shame. So I`ll leave some contentous documents here to restart deliberations.
> 
> After "leaving his post" Dowding wrote a lengthy report giving his views on the Battle of Britain, the report was classified until the war had ended,
> but, even during the war, its obvious that his report was seen as too direct to even share outside of the Ministry, here Portal writes to Churchill
> ...


Didnt the Air Ministry produce a history of the Battle of Britain that made no mention of Park or Dowding?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Didnt the Air Ministry produce a history of the Battle of Britain that made no mention of Park or Dowding?


They did, I even have an original copy, which bought & read myself to make sure. To be fair it actually doesnt really mention many names at all, but I still think its utterly staggering that it didnt have Park or Dowding`s. Its actually quite lengthy too, much more than just a couple of pages of waffle and a photo of the queen or something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> They did, I even have an original copy, which bought & read myself to make sure. To be fair it actually doesnt really mention many names at all, but I still think its utterly staggering that it didnt have Park or Dowding`s. Its actually quite lengthy too, much more than just a couple of pages of waffle and a photo of the queen or something.


Well I can understand not mentioning specific commanders as that may lead to a comparison of Park and Leigh Mallory or even Brand (10 group) and Leigh Mallory, but to not mention Dowding is "shenanigans" it was on Dowdings system that the whole battle was fought and won (or not lost).


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Well I can understand not mentioning specific commanders as that may lead to a comparison of Park and Leigh Mallory or even Brand (10 group) and Leigh Mallory, but to not mention Dowding is "shenanigans" it was on Dowdings system that the whole battle was fought and won (or not lost).


I`ll maybe scan it, its quite long and I think how amazing it is that these men are not even in it, can only be appreciated if you see the original document. Its probably a good couple of thousand words.

Imagine writing 2000 words for a school essay about Agincourt without saying "Henry V" anywhere in it, and expecting to get 10/10 (Agincourt is by the way mentioned in that document !)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Jul 4, 2022)

Even Churchill was nonplussed by the document and sent a letter to the Air ministry berating them for the omission of Dowding. I don't know
if it was but I suspect it was Churchill who ensured Dowding was asked to give an independent report on the Battle of Britain.

The meeting where the big wing system was put forward as being the best while Dowding and Park were forced to defend the smaller unit
method was a set up which did not help Dowding's cause at all (it didn't help Parks future either).

Dowding and Park were not liked due to their views on the inabilities of bombers to defend themselves during daylight against decent fighter
aircraft (didn't put them in the good books with the bomber fraternity).

Dowding had also championed the Spitfire when others were not in favour of using it all. For others in the ministry and RAF the Westland Whirlwind
and Beaufighter with their superior armament were the best planes to have for knocking down bombers. This was based on the thought that Germany
would not have escort fighters (109s) as they could not fly from Germany to England and back alongside the bombers. This was a reasonable assumption
but the fall of France and the low countries meant 109s could get there (don't make assumptions when trying to prepare for all eventualities - championing an
assumption is for politicians and debating societies).

Dowding ensured in every way possible that the RAF would have the planes for the job.

The other smack used against Dowding was the lack of a night fighter once the London blitz started. Again, there were those who wanted the Hurricane used
immediately whereas Dowding wanted to use the Beaufighter once it was ready (not immediate though). The Hurricane was used once Dowding was 'discredited'
and was basically a failure for the job as it wasn't set up for it.

People will probably argue whether it was the Spitfire or the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain till the cows come home but in reality it was the Dowding system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

