And if I correct you I get accused of being anti-British.
Or if I ask what was modified to justify your position it gets blown off.
Give me an example of when you have corrected me, and I have accused you of being anti-British because of it?
But if I point out some of British mistakes I am accused of being anti-British.
No! Again, you're putting your own spin on it!
I correct you if you deliberately state the Brits did something when they didn't or didn't do something when they did or by not putting their actions into context. Let me remind you....
You once stated that pre-war British bombers were rubbish, I asked you to justify that and you banged on about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger on the Whitley, as you do, so I presented figures and made loose comparisons with other bombers built around the world at the time, which proved that British bombers had good and bad points but were not, on average rubbish for the time, the main take away being they could carry big bomb loads further and were fitted with better defensive armament.
You said that the RAF dedicated no resources to army co-operation between the wars and I pointed out that between the mid-1920s and the mid 1930s the RAF operated over 1,000 army co-coperation aircraft before the Lysander entered service - many air forces didn't even operate that many aircraft in total in that time.
You said the British were behind in putting constant speed propellers on their aircraft, yet when war was declared in 1939, only the RAF and USAAC had frontline fighters that had C/S propellers in service.
You claimed the British night fighter force in 1940 was disorganised and badly equipped, no other air force had a dedicated night fighter arm at that time and no other air force was fitting radar to night fighters at the time.
You repeatedly state the Defiant was not a success as a night fighter based on its kill figures, yet I have stated that these are misleading, because they don't give an accurate context of overall operations.
You also said that the British mismanaged use of the Fortress I because of the small numbers sent on operations, I stated that this was because of unserviceability, not to mention the icing issues and so on that were beyond British and US control or knowledge.
You have repeatedly made the point, in fact you opened an entire thread about how poor the RAF was at fulfilling what it stated it could do before the war, specifically its bomber fleet not being able to fly all the way to Germany and so forth, so I chimed in stating that no air force was capable of doing everything they stated at the time and I have repeatedly, REPEEATEDLY stated that by putting these things into context, it turns out that the RAF was like everyone else in this case, therefore such a thing was not remarkable, but common. To add to the bomber discussion, you have repeatedly slandered the British tactics first applied in the war, yet I have stated that no air force in the world at the time could have done anything different in combatting the German advance into Western Europe any better.
There are probably more examples. I'm gonna keep correcting you if what you state is not accurate but do us a favour, leave the presumptuousness out. Quoting me out of context doesn't do your case any favours. Case in point from a few posts back.
And use a bit of your own argument back at you. Claiming that the British had anything to do with the improvement in the ceiling of the Hudson compared to the Lockheed 14 overlooks the fact the engines used in the later Hudson's didn't exist in 1937-38 and when the engines did show up later they were American engines using American superchargers.
This is what I wrote:
It was a masterpiece of modification to an existing design and retained the original dimensions of the Model 14, Lockheed managed to keep its performance to similar parameters as the airliner. This was impressive as, while the Hudson was slightly slower in cruise and maximum speeds, it had a (considerably) higher ceiling and longer range, despite a heavier (by 1,600 lbs) empty weight and (by 2,000 lb) max loaded weight.
Where was I crediting Britain?
Cut the BS and stop accusing me of saying things that I'm not.