hanks for being condescending, that really helps your argument.
im not being condescending, sorry if you took it that way. Rather than me getting into a distasteful argument about what i think and what you think about your knowledge of air control, why dont you just tell me what you think and then we can take it from there. The generally accepted theories on air control is about the measure of freedom of manouvre a force can exercise in a given theatre or battle. air supremacy generally means a force can act with virtual impunity. perhaps only attritional losses due to unavoidable non combat losses. No real restriction on operational freedom. Air superiority means that there are some losses, but operations can be undertaken with a fair amount of freedom and and choice, losses tolerable, and operations able to be undertaken on a sustained basis. Air parity means restricted air operations, limited freedom of manouvre, some operations ok, but some with heavy losses, air activity intermittent. There is one other term, not really relating to air control, but simply what a defender can sometimes achieve....air denial, which means that every now and then they can intervene and inflict attrition on an opponent, so as to increase the costs and losses and reduce accuracy for the bombers. Obsolete fighter, no matter the numbers, cannot effectively claim either of the first two air states under any circumstances (except if ther are no opposing forces at all, or perhaps only with sustained attrition over a fairly long period), but they can do quite a bit towards the last two. Which is precisely where the fulmar slots in in 1940-41.
Over SE englands the Germans, despite massive efforts, never achieved air superiority, much less supremacy. they were aiming for the latter. Because of that, clashes between opposing fighters were numerous, because the RAF simply would not concede air superiority to the germans. However, they did not achieve their victory because they necesarily possessed a superior fighter. We still argue incessantly about whether the 109 or the spit was superior, but forget that the lions share of the fighting for the british was done by an aircraft decidely inferior to the 109....the Hurricane. The Germans lost 250 fighters, give or take, during the main phase of the BoB , whilst the Brits lost , what, say 700 fighters. To those 250 German fighters, you can add at least 1200 other german aircraft, and thats where their defeat lies. Losses were so heavy, that the germans were unable to sustain operations, but the Brits did not win that victory by superior types, or a clear technological advantage (in the air i mean). They used attrition to wear the germans down, concentrating on the destruction of the bombers, because, you guessed it, their main fighter was outclassed by the Germans.
over Malta, despite the relatively modest 109 numbers committed, the Germans did achieve air superiority, tending to air supremacy. They could operate with virtual impunity over Malta in the finish, and could underttake whatever air operation they cared for. because Malta was a point defence target, they could achieve fighter concentrations way above what the modest numbers would otherwise suggest. the losses they suffered were attritional, inflicted in the main by Hurricanes, but also by the half squadron of Fulmars also based there. In the face of overwhelming German superiority, RAF and FAA tactics were not to engage head on, but pick off stragglers and wounded aircraft.....an effective response but one that took time to achieve any measurable or significant effect. If forced to do so, they could have also used that tactic over SE England for Fulmar operations.
I cannot find one single instance where Fulmars were even likely to encounter Bf 109s over Malta, so, from that perspective, you have no basis for your claims that they could survive for long enough to pick off one or two bombers when faced with modern, high speed fighters flown by competent pilots.
Where and how thoroughly did you look. Encounters between 109s and fulmars, or Hurricaners for that matter, during the worst parts oif the air battle over Malta were indeed rare, though not non-existent. It was an appropriate and effective response to an enemy conceded as having total air superiority over the island. I disagree that they were non-existent however. I suggest you look again, particulalry just after January 10 1941, and goes to the heart of what im arguing. But in the main fighter to fighter encounters were rare, which to that extent is consistent with your claim. They were actively avoided by the defenders, thats why, and really, when you think about it, is the main point Im making. fighting 109s in an aircraft like the Fulmar is not something really good for your long term health, but it does not follow that because the 109 outclassed the Fulmar, that the Fulmar was going to be shot down as a matter of course or that the fulmar was unable of achieving some effective results. over malta, the Fulmar managed both...to survive and shoot down enemy aircraft,whilst avoiding clashes with an enemy that could clearly fly rings around it if it had caught the fulmar. Or that it (the Fulmar) could not operate with some effect on the battle. It proved itself very suvivable over Malta, and had quite a bit of effect. Remember, i conceded that obsolete fighters cannot win air superiority in the face of a better quality opponent, except by attritional means, but they can survive, and they can use "air guerilla tactics" to pick off the vulnerable strike aircraft here and there, gradually wearing down an opponent until the problem was more manageable. this is precisely what the defenders over Malta were forced to do, but it was effective in the end. far from disproving that the fulmar was a survivable asset in such an enbvironment, or that there were no 109s over Malta, it 9ther was no combat with 109s) proves that Fulmars could survive in a hostile environment, with minimal losses, and some effect (albeit a supplementary one, which is all I ever claimed).
Thats why having the biggest, meanest fighter on the block will get you air auperiority, but not necessarily victory, and why having a force of Fulmars (if they had been available at all in any meanigful numbers in August 1940) over England in 1940, was not necessarily a liability. They were never available, and in any event the RAF had oodles of spare Hurricanes and Spits to use instead. they were short of pilots. But if they had had oodles of pilots, but were short of airframes, but a relative large supply of Fulmars, i would not have hesitated to use them to try and get at stragglers and damaged bombers where the opportunity arose....and it arose often, because the germans had insufficient numbers of fighters to be everywhere in strength when needed.
You know ful-mar well that Fulmars did not encounter modern, high speed fighters such as the Bf 109 so there are no such attrition statistics to point to.
This is incorrect, but it is true that they were uncommon. Thats the very point Im making. they could operate in skies dominated by superior fighters (even a 110 was a handful for a fulmar), both in numbers and quality, and yet, still get effective and important work done
Nor is your hypothesis proven and, once again, thanks for your condescending remarks about my inferior understanding of how air combat works.
Its not my theory, its theories that Ive learnt, taught and applied for a living stretching over a period of years. Not being condescending, have a great deal of respect for your knowledge actually, but on the the application of air power, the achievement of air state, why having the most modern fighter wont necessarily win a campaign, you dont understand the theory. There is no other way of putting it. I have to ask, do you have any practical experience in air operations or air defence problem solving. i will hazard a gues and expect that you have none, but have read extensively on the technical aspects of flying. Doesnt mean you are wrong in the wider sense, but its obvious to me, someone who is trained in this field professionally, that you dont understand these concepts at all. I genuinely dont want to offend you in that regard, but it is what it is