Anything is a help, but from what I read if you ditch a fighter it sinks in seconds and if you parachute, the thing that just helped you float down then tries to kill you. Its also very difficult to see someone in the water from a boat unless the sea is flat calm.
Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And that's also assuming the pilot wasn't injured by enemy gunfire and/or got their face hammered by the gunsight when the aircraft hit the water.
And his Mae West wasnt burned or punctured. The way this is discussed and reported in various articles is suggestive of all RAF pilots drowning while all LW pilots just had to get within 20miles of France and they survived. It was a fact that RAF pilots who chased LW fighters across the channel frequently got shot down, this is what Dowding was keenest to avoid. It was a war off attrition and good pilots had to be preserved.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Gentlemen, I would suggest that continuing this ridiculous... er .... "debate" with our obviously very ill-informed and certainly opinionated "friend" is totally fruitless.
His failure to address facts presented, and his continuing rebuttal of all the documented evidence in answer to his on-going juvenile tirade would indicate that he is, basically, a waste of rations, and, perhaps, at some point in the (probably) distant future, he may actually grow up - although current evidence would indicate that he's a total ****wit, so that's doubtful !
Meanwhile, I wish him the best of luck in his dream world ..........................................
His failure to address facts presented, and his continuing rebuttal of all the documented evidence in answer to his on-going juvenile tirade would indicate that he is, basically, a waste of rations, and, perhaps, at some point in the (probably) distant future, he may actually grow up - although current evidence would indicate that he's a total ****wit, so that's doubtful !
Meanwhile, I wish him the best of luck in his dream world ..........................................
More like he'll grow up to be a proud boy.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The one benefit of this "exchange" would be a generous amount of facts presented in response to the fiction, which might be found useful to others who have either been following the thread or will someday come upon it.
To add to that, I actually learned some things about Chain Home I wasn't aware if, so even I came away with something useful - of course the information I'm referring to was in the factual replies, not by the "fiction master".
To add to that, I actually learned some things about Chain Home I wasn't aware if, so even I came away with something useful - of course the information I'm referring to was in the factual replies, not by the "fiction master".
The P51's aerodynamic advantages are mostly associated with powered flight. It's L/D in glide is probably notably less than a BoB Spitfire, and it's greater weight means best L/D will come at a significantly higher speed. If the engine is for sure not available, then the prop must be stopped as that big four bladed windmill will kill glide performance. Slowing to just above a stall and waiting patiently for it to spin down should do the trick. I've done this in several different aircraft (with RELIABLE starters) in the days of young and foolish. It works.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I blocked him about a week ago for his arguing that the Japanese Navy had simply no way (in late 1941) of estimating fuel use in a wartime condition -- as if they didn't have ship-mileage information, and distance-information from war plans, and couldn't do what is basically simple math -- because the Americans might do something different. Well of course we did, and that's why all militaries build in reserves in their equations. They planned and projected, but not quite well enough.
My blocking is usually only a few days long, until my annoyance passes, and so it is that I'm reading his horseshit here in this thread. Holding onto dear views, refusing to look at the records of events (no RAF fighters over the Channel? lol!) and not listening to any views which don't agree with his own.
Again, it goes back to someone being so sure in their knowledge that they're unable to learn anything more. As Pa Thump used to say: You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. Use them in that order.
The old adage about minds and parachutes comes to mind?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Funny enough -- at 54 years as I write this -- and as a Zappa fan -- I've never heard this saying; I had to Google it, heh. But yeah, that's really what the old man was getting at, in his staff-sergeant (E-6 variety, thank you!) way. You only learn when you're open to learning. Once you're convinced you know something, you've started to fossilize.
Call me T Rex.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I am too -- in my own field of "expertise", music. But I still pay attention to the whipper-snappers, because those little a-holes are really happy to pole and prod.
I'm just a lot slower now ... hmph.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey ljadw,
Is this the article at the RAF Museum website you are referencing?
"StackPath"
I think you would find this companion article on the same RAF Museum website interesting. It describes how the CH and CHL radar network was used to determine direction/bearing and altitude.
"StackPath"
I do not know why the first article is written the way it is, or why it has been allowed to stay up for as long as it has, but it should be modified or taken down until whoever wrote it is more interested/capable in giving a more complete & less ambiguous description.
The ranges were determined by looking at the location of the spike versus the scale on the CRT 'A' scope (some times referred to as 'R' scope).
Below is an actual photographic image of a Chain Home 'A' scope as used in 1940:
Also, the radars - when coupled with trained and experienced operators - were capable of determining incoming numbers to a large degree. Admittedly they estimated the numbers, and often used terms like like 'large', 'medium', and 'small' for the size of the 'raid', but they were effective.
Is this the article at the RAF Museum website you are referencing?
"StackPath"
I think you would find this companion article on the same RAF Museum website interesting. It describes how the CH and CHL radar network was used to determine direction/bearing and altitude.
"StackPath"
I do not know why the first article is written the way it is, or why it has been allowed to stay up for as long as it has, but it should be modified or taken down until whoever wrote it is more interested/capable in giving a more complete & less ambiguous description.
The ranges were determined by looking at the location of the spike versus the scale on the CRT 'A' scope (some times referred to as 'R' scope).
Below is an actual photographic image of a Chain Home 'A' scope as used in 1940:
Also, the radars - when coupled with trained and experienced operators - were capable of determining incoming numbers to a large degree. Admittedly they estimated the numbers, and often used terms like like 'large', 'medium', and 'small' for the size of the 'raid', but they were effective.
Last edited:
From Eagle in Flames
Which proves that it was the LW who had air superiority over the Channel .
buffnut453
Captain
What about Bomber Command's sorties during the BoB? They flew a great many missions to attack invasion barges and port facilities, not to mention longer-range sorties into Germany itself. The image below is dated 10 August 1940 and shows Le Bourget being added to a list of recent targets attacked by the Blenheims of 110 Sqn (Source: IWM):
How was this possible if the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the Channel?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You have absolutely NO clue as to WTF you're talking about.
But the comic value of your posts are priceless and I am enjoying every bit of it, so please carry on.
By the way, you really need to be over at the Reddit or War Thunder forums, they'd adore your bullshit.
The attacks of Bomber Command had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain .
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Sort if like the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with the Battle of Britain either, right?
buffnut453
Captain
Excuse me but come again? They were air operations conducted in the same theatre at the same time as the assets directly involved in the BoB. They were flying through the same airspace.
Again, how can the Luftwaffe have obtained air superiority over the Channel if Bomber Command aircraft were operating there?
Answer that question instead of making yet more nonsense statements.
Chain Home was a fixed, non rotational system that could not see beyond its sixty-degree transmission arc or behind it once the targets had flown overhead and so raid plotting over land was down to ground observers .
Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft .
Other point : plotting over land did not indicate where and when the German aircraft would be, it could only give a vague indication where the Germans could be at a certain point .
Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain :the burden was with the LW ,not with RAF: the LW had to eliminate FC, or to prevent FC to intervene if/when Sealion would be started (which it never could be ) ,FC could always avoid this by retreating to the north,where it was save from the LW .
What the Germans need was not air superiority over southern England before Sealion, but air superiority over southern England at the start of Sealion and during the buildup of Sealion(which would take months ).
The Battle of Britain was not a battle that would decide the outcome of the war, but only a necessary tool (one of the many ) to make Sealion possible, not to make Sealion successful .
Neither could CH guess what would be the target of the incoming German aircraft .
Other point : plotting over land did not indicate where and when the German aircraft would be, it could only give a vague indication where the Germans could be at a certain point .
Last point : I see that there are still some people who are unable to grasp the essence of the Battle of Britain :the burden was with the LW ,not with RAF: the LW had to eliminate FC, or to prevent FC to intervene if/when Sealion would be started (which it never could be ) ,FC could always avoid this by retreating to the north,where it was save from the LW .
What the Germans need was not air superiority over southern England before Sealion, but air superiority over southern England at the start of Sealion and during the buildup of Sealion(which would take months ).
The Battle of Britain was not a battle that would decide the outcome of the war, but only a necessary tool (one of the many ) to make Sealion possible, not to make Sealion successful .
Last edited:
