Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Next Question, Where did Kurfurst go?
Gone drinking, meeting a beautiful blonde, generally enjoying weekend like normal people do. How was yours? 8)
I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.
People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.
And oh the discussion is going very much the way I intend it. Intelligent, informative, and except for your latest post, heading towards a rational and civilized discussion.
I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.
People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.
Fulmar (1942) Malta related operations:
2 x S-79
2 x S-84
5 x Z-1007bis
losses:
1 to CR-42
1 to Re-2001
1 to S-79
1 to Z-1007bis
1 to D-520
9 operational losses
1 to 'Friendly' AA
Martlet (1942) Malta related operations
2 x S-84
1 x Re-2001
1 x Ju-88
losses:
1 to Ju-88
6 operational losses
It depends on the numbers of each type as to how effective they were. A
May 18th, 1942. D-520 of Vichy French unit GC III/6 downed a Fulmar piloted by Lt. P.R. Hall and A/G Nuttall during Operation 'LB' flying in 17 Spitfires to Malta. A Catalina was also downed by a D-520 from GC II/3 same day.
+1
Gotta agree here...
Kurfurst was correct above. This discussion has been informative and up to that comment conducted in an adult manner (Unless I missed something before, I don't think I have...). Ever since Soren was removed, so was the problem for the most part.
Therefore it is not necessary to make such comments in this discussion, unless such things are happening in the discussion. People who typically do that (when not warranted that is), are only trying to pick a fight because they have nothing better to say.
I was fair to Kurfurst before and its only right that I be fair to Parsifal here. Kurfurst does have a track record of making statments, often inflamitory ones and then dissapearing when the going gets tough. Recent examples are :-
a) Pilots Hours
His statment about the RAF sending pilots into battle had not had time to master the Tiger Moth. When challanged to support it he tried to imply that he had said something else.
Quote Alll RAF fighter pilots arriving with a mere 6 weeks of training (instead of the orginal, iirc 3 months..), very little flight experience with either general flying or on their operational type to their operational units. How can you fly the Spitfire if you haven't even mastered the Tiger Moth yet..?
b) Bomber Command Losses
One report said that Bomber Command had lost approx 8,500 planes and Kurfurst said that these were based on incorrect radio reports for the British public and the real losses were 10,000. When asked to support this he made a bland statement that it was well known and documented in a number of publications and official reports. When asked which he just went quiet and dissapeared.
See posting 40 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/westland-whirlwind-vs-fw-187-vs-p-38-a-26065-3.html
c) This thread
The evidence was going against him, the first class Nickadeamus filled a lot of gaps and again he went quiet. Until he responded to the flipant line that I posted but as I said it was a good riposte I will give him that.
I should emphasise that this is a pattern and these are just the recent threads.
Part of the problem with FAA requirements was that the Royal Navy and the RAF were at cross purposes when it came to deciding what was needed: when the RAF were in charge of the FAA there were short-range single seat fighters designed and used (eg: Fairey Flycatcher, Hawker Nimrod [which was not a development of the Fury Biplane as myth would have it - it was a parallel development of the Fury formula] etc) on carriers) When the Royal Navy took over operating carriers and framing requirements for the FAA many of those who framed the requirements were unsure of exactly what the role of fleet carriers should be. Unlike many in the US Navy, who envisaged carriers to be the strategic weapons systems of the future, the RN still considered battleships to be the main weapon, with carriers in support. Nor did the RN envisage that their fleet would be faced with concentrated air raids from land based or carrier based aircraft.Hello Parsifal
Yes, I know but IIRC both Fulmar and Zero got their first kills in Sept 40, so they were contemporaries. But the main question is why RN went to big 2-seater when IJN and USN chose smaller single seater. We know the answer, so no need to discuss it here. And as I wrote, soldiers had to do their best with the equipment given to them. Even use shot-guns and logs of wood as A/T weapons if there was nothing better around. Fulmar was much better fighter than those ad hoc means were AT weapons but it is self-clear that one use what one get but one can still wonder why this solution and not something else that might be more effective to given job.
Juha
It should be noted here that Supermarine did have drawing board designs for two-seat FAA fighters based on their experience with the Spitfire, although the elliptical wing was dropped for a tapered design, and there was an early design for a single-seat fighter based on the Spitfire which was dropped in favour of the Fulmar.