Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
Good point parsifal, what is not said in those ratios is it was almost a maximum effort in the bomber numbers, the LW was having to merge units because bomber losses couldnt be replaced by production.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Anyway, the numbers of aircraft involved in this last major daylight attack against England, after the RAF had been given more than a week to recover and had substantially reinforced its badly depleted forces saw 630 RAF defenders pitted against morethan 900 Luftwaffe attackers. And remember, this was basically after the overall battle had been decided. Prior to that the numbers were heavily in favour of the Germans, even in category to category basis
In the two main engagements, the fighter losses had been about equal. The big difference was the bombers losses. Fighter Command had had greater success against the afternoon attack rather than the morning assault, which it out numbered 2:1. The ratio of German fighters to bombers had been 3:1 in the morning but 5:1 in the afternoon, so there were more targets. The more bombers Kesselring sent, the more were lost.
I dont agree with your figures,and neither do any of the 6 reputable references including Gallands own account. you are using highly selective and biased techniques to try and push a point that is so hopelessly out of step with reality its laughable
Anyway, the numbers of aircraft involved in this last major daylight attack against England, after the RAF had been given more than a week to recover and had substantially reinforced its badly depleted forces saw 630 RAF defenders pitted against morethan 900 Luftwaffe attackers. And remember, this was basically after the overall battle had been decided.
Prior to that the numbers were heavily in favour of the Germans, even in category to category basis
Tante
How about you post your sorces and we will examine them, rather than reduce this to name calling and emotionalism.
I am aware of your efforts to prove the adequacy of the 109s range, but it just doesnt add up up, and to be honest, remains unsupported argument, and as I said at the time, show documented evidence of the 109 having an effective range of 700km, ie the ability to either intercept out to 700 km, or escort out to the same range, and I will start to believe you.
Show verifiable records that the LW was outnumbered as at 15 September 1940 and your argument will start to get traction.
Show evidence that LW losses on the whole of the west front in April '41 were limited to less than 58 machines, and you will start to establish credibility with me.
Dont rely on unsubstantiated dogma to get you through, it wont work. You have to prove your case, not just stomp your feet, accuse me of bullying or whatever other tricks you want to employ to try and get your point across. none of this works with me. The only thing that will, will be if you can present a well researched dossier of supporting material that will prove the point.
Now, as for being rude or a bully, well, I am truly sorry if that is how you feel. Most do not.
From start of battle in August, the number Germans deployed in combat against UK was very same. No great difference.
Good point parsifal, what is not said in those ratios is it was almost a maximum effort in the bomber numbers,
the LW was having to merge units because bomber losses couldnt be replaced by production.
The problem is Tante the battle didnt start in August the LW was losing aircraft from the minute it invaded Poland. After the fall of France Goering was shocked at how few planes he had left. By August the battle was reaching its peak, it started long before then.
I believe real battle started in August. With Day of the Eagle.
Parsifal, you keep deny, insult.. funny, you always describe your own post as substantive... I think: when it will become real, when someone else also think of that of your post, too? You have much confidence, certain. Anyone else is "unrefereced claim" etc. always.
I think I did best to support my posts. If you tell I did not, I think this is very dishonest. And because you behave such way, I do not see why I support it AGAIN. I wrote down once. Read. But you ignore. You pretend I did not. You are even too lazy to read it, say I have to search it for you.
Why would I? I do not fear your talk will mislead anyone. Basical, you only talk... use big words, have big and strange opinions, but I do not learn from your posts. That is my opinion. If you want to pick fight with people, why not find somebody else? And why should I waste time? You said many opinion here, but proved none. Others did.