Old Photos For No Reason Whatsoever

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


I should coco said:
Nice to see that you posted a picture of the aircraft that won the Battle of Britain, rather than the Spitfire of popular mythology.
Click to expand...
That's right, contrary to popular belief, it had a better strike rate than the Spitfire, I think they both used the same engine configuration also.
 
Kop sufferer said:
That's right, contrary to popular belief, it had a better strike rate than the Spitfire, I think they both used the same engine configuration also.
Click to expand...
"In July 1940, when the fight began, the RAF Fighter Command had 396 operational Hurricanes and 228 Spitfires. That ratio, three Hurricanes to two Spitfires, held through the summer. Fighter Command tended to steer Spitfires against the Luftwaffe's high-altitude fighters, freeing the Hurricanes to attack the slower, lower-flying German bombers. By the battle's nominal close, at the end of October, Hurricanes had claimed 656 enemy aircraft, versus 529 for Spitfires.

Yet Spitfires got top billing. In the "after myth" of war, Hurricane supporters have long complained that their fighter was denied full credit. They even name the villain, British actor Leslie Howard, and the 1942 film he directed and starred in, The First of the Few. A half-century after its first run, John W. Fozard, a retired Hawker designer and aviation historian, wrote a book titled Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, in which he denounced First of the Few as the "infamous wartime movie…that fixed forever in the public mind the image of the Spitfire as the winner of the Battle of Britain thus performing a permanent assassination job on the Hurricane."

You can still catch The First of the Few, which has been released on video. It's a creaky, old-fashioned biopic about the Spitfire's designer, R.J. Mitchell, who died of cancer at age 42. (In the film, though, Mitchell succumbs to what the physician character refers to as "overdoing it, old boy.") Mitchell lived to see his prototype fly, but not the operational Spitfire squadrons that were filmed for the movie's opening montage. There is not a single Hurricane in sight."
www.airspacemag.com

Best of the Battle of Britain

In this corner, the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire; across the ring, the Hawker Hurricane. Which is the more valuable restoration?
www.airspacemag.com www.airspacemag.com
 
Kop sufferer said:
That's right, contrary to popular belief, it had a better strike rate than the Spitfire, I think they both used the same engine configuration also.
Click to expand...
I should coco said:
"In July 1940, when the fight began, the RAF Fighter Command had 396 operational Hurricanes and 228 Spitfires. That ratio, three Hurricanes to two Spitfires, held through the summer. Fighter Command tended to steer Spitfires against the Luftwaffe's high-altitude fighters, freeing the Hurricanes to attack the slower, lower-flying German bombers. By the battle's nominal close, at the end of October, Hurricanes had claimed 656 enemy aircraft, versus 529 for Spitfires.

Yet Spitfires got top billing. In the "after myth" of war, Hurricane supporters have long complained that their fighter was denied full credit. They even name the villain, British actor Leslie Howard, and the 1942 film he directed and starred in, The First of the Few. A half-century after its first run, John W. Fozard, a retired Hawker designer and aviation historian, wrote a book titled Sydney Camm and the Hurricane, in which he denounced First of the Few as the "infamous wartime movie…that fixed forever in the public mind the image of the Spitfire as the winner of the Battle of Britain thus performing a permanent assassination job on the Hurricane."

You can still catch The First of the Few, which has been released on video. It's a creaky, old-fashioned biopic about the Spitfire's designer, R.J. Mitchell, who died of cancer at age 42. (In the film, though, Mitchell succumbs to what the physician character refers to as "overdoing it, old boy.") Mitchell lived to see his prototype fly, but not the operational Spitfire squadrons that were filmed for the movie's opening montage. There is not a single Hurricane in sight."
www.airspacemag.com

Best of the Battle of Britain

In this corner, the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire; across the ring, the Hawker Hurricane. Which is the more valuable restoration?
www.airspacemag.com www.airspacemag.com
Click to expand...
I prefer to see it as one aircraft complimented the other. One a work horse the other a thoroughbred, it was to Britain's advantage, history says so and Britain were fortunate to have two aircraft designers the caliber of Camm and Mitchell.
 
HighfieldBlade said:
Anyone remember Spanish Gold? Shredded chocolate-flavoured coconut, made to resemble tobacco...
View attachment 120562
Click to expand...

My favourite childhood sweet, although I was also very partial to coconut mushrooms.

In later life, I’ve become partial to a Thai curry while listening to Kid Creole music (I made the last bit up but a coconut is a wonderful thing).
 
I should coco said:
Nice to see that you posted a picture of the aircraft that won the Battle of Britain, rather than the Spitfire of popular mythology.
Click to expand...
I think the term "Battle of Britain" itself is mythology personified. There was no specific "battle". It had no defining end or victory as such. It was simply a change of tactics by the Luftwaffe from daylight fighter sorties, (where statistical results were not giving large enough gains), to nighttime bombing of strategic targets (docks etc.), which has far greater effect in terms of damage created and losses endured.
 
1066blade said:
I think the term "Battle of Britain" itself is mythology personified. There was no specific "battle". It had no defining end or victory as such. It was simply a change of tactics by the Luftwaffe from daylight fighter sorties, (where statistical results were not giving large enough gains), to nighttime bombing of strategic targets (docks etc.), which has far greater effect in terms of damage created and losses endured.
Click to expand...

It was a "battle' in the same sense that Stalingrad was, and similarly was a major point in WWII.
You are correct that there was no single defining moment but there are no rules that a battle can only last for a certain number of hours.

The change of tactics by the Luftwaffe was a recognition that they could not defeat the RAF in combat. That change in itself was an admission they couldn't win so after the catastrophic fall of France and Dunkirk, any 'victory' had to be seized on.

Their change to night bombing may have killed thousands and caused widespread damage, but it did not achieve its aim of knocking us out of the war.
 

I should coco said:
It was a "battle' in the same sense that Stalingrad was, and similarly was a major point in WWII.
You are correct that there was no single defining moment but there are no rules that a battle can only last for a certain number of hours.

The change of tactics by the Luftwaffe was a recognition that they could not defeat the RAF in combat. That change in itself was an admission they couldn't win so after the catastrophic fall of France and Dunkirk, any 'victory' had to be seized on.

Their change to night bombing may have killed thousands and caused widespread damage, but it did not achieve its aim of knocking us out of the war.
Click to expand...
3 part series on some Sky channel called simply The battle of Britain. Was very informative and factually correct. Has you say no defining battle but the last month with Hitler royally pissed off with Goring bought it to a conclusion. Hitler wanted it finished so Goring blitzed London thinking that would finish it but whilst they where hitting London the RAF where regrouping and rebuilding the airfields in the South.( which if they had concentrated on the airfields the RAF would have been wiped out). The RAF plan was not to engaging them until their return journey when they where low on fuel and their fighter planes couldn't make it to London and back on a full tank. Think the numbers where 10/1 . 20000 German aircraft to the RAF 2000. Best 3 hours of TV for years.
 
I should coco said:
It was a "battle' in the same sense that Stalingrad was, and similarly was a major point in WWII.
You are correct that there was no single defining moment but there are no rules that a battle can only last for a certain number of hours.

The change of tactics by the Luftwaffe was a recognition that they could not defeat the RAF in combat. That change in itself was an admission they couldn't win so after the catastrophic fall of France and Dunkirk, any 'victory' had to be seized on.

Their change to night bombing may have killed thousands and caused widespread damage, but it did not achieve its aim of knocking us out of the war.
Click to expand...
Stalingrad, followed by the great tank battles of Kursk were without doubt thr turning points of the war. The Nazis never recovered, retreating to Berlin and ultimate defeat. Russian armed land forces (T34 tanks, 300 a week!) and US money (in the form of the Ally supply chain) together won the war. The 'Battle of Britain' was insignificant, apart from being (as you say), a much needed national tonic, after Churchill's appalling attempt to turn the debacle of Dunkirk into some sort of national pride achievement.
 
1066blade said:
The 'Battle of Britain' was insignificant,
Click to expand...

I have to disagree completely. Had we 'lost' Operation Sea Lion would have ensure the swastika was flying all over western Europe. Maintaining our independence. allowed for the opening the second front in 1944 to take the pressure off the Russians. Without this, the Russians would have been on their own and the Wermacht would only have had to fight on one front.
1066blade said:
Churchill's appalling attempt to turn the debacle of Dunkirk into some sort of national pride achievement
Click to expand...

Appalling? He was a leader in a brutal world war and he had to do whatever he could to keep morale high. Don't forget that plenty in the cabinet wanted to come to peace terms with Hitler, so I for one am truly grateful we had that stubborn old sod leading us.
 
I should coco said:
I have to disagree completely. Had we 'lost' Operation Sea Lion would have ensure the swastika was flying all over western Europe. Maintaining our independence. allowed for the opening the second front in 1944 to take the pressure off the Russians. Without this, the Russians would have been on their own and the Wermacht would only have had to fight on one front.


Appalling? He was a leader in a brutal world war and he had to do whatever he could to keep morale high. Don't forget that plenty in the cabinet wanted to come to peace terms with Hitler, so I for one am truly grateful we had that stubborn old sod leading us.
Click to expand...
Stubborn old sod, you say with a modicum of admiration. Tell that to the families of the thousands who died at Gallipoli in WW1, or similarly the many others who suffered a similar fate in Norway in WW2, the guy was an absolute military liability.
 
SouthEssexBlade said:
I can think of two better. The Geisel library, California

View attachment 120583


Boston City Hall.


View attachment 120584
Click to expand...
I quite like the library, it's main negative to me seems to be waste of materials to achieve it's effect. Is it supposed to represent the tree of knowledge?
The City Hall fits in with its surrounds, all drab but maybe functional but as you indicate they don't lift the sole.
 
1066blade said:
Stalingrad, followed by the great tank battles of Kursk were without doubt thr turning points of the war. The Nazis never recovered, retreating to Berlin and ultimate defeat. Russian armed land forces (T34 tanks, 300 a week!) and US money (in the form of the Ally supply chain) together won the war. The 'Battle of Britain' was insignificant, apart from being (as you say), a much needed national tonic, after Churchill's appalling attempt to turn the debacle of Dunkirk into some sort of national pride achievement.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Russian who helped the Germans invade Poland, the same Russia who signed a non aggressive act with Germany in 1939, the same Russia who where supplying Germany with most of their materials whilst the Battle of Britain was playing out. Goring had to admit to Hitler Britain wouldn’t be taken, so he then renegades on his own treaty with Russia and turns on them. So the Battle of Britain was very significant. But as you say, all wars are a debacle.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jono_t2000
Team vs Villa
Replies
4
Views
583
jono_t2000
jono_t2000
O
Stuart Hutchinson RIP
Replies
17
Views
2K
LSF
LSF
B
Why 7-30 KO.
Replies
4
Views
879
brownblade
brownblade
shorehamview
What does he have to do to get sacked?
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
8K
Bladesman
Bladesman
Fjortoft's Aeroplane
Failure to compete - FA punishment?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
6K
Sean Thornton
Sean Thornton

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom