Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?

[Crumpp]

Yes it did.

Not according to the RAF.

As that doc is down as listing RAF aircrew strength, does it list numbers of pilots, or number of aircraft?

I do not know for sure.  I think it list's both but will know for sure when it gets here.  My copy was sent out by airmail Friday.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kev367th]

CC Crumpp

Just that the figures I gave for July 1 serviceable 590+ aircraft, also lists 1200 pilots.
Why 1200?
Well not all RAF planes were Spits or Hurricanes, instructors and pilots at OCU were included, pilot was a still a pilot if aircraft was unserviceable.

So it would be quite possible to have 1200 pilots but only 590 serviceable Spits/Hurris/Defiants/Blenheims combat ready..

[Crumpp]

So it would be quite possible to have 1200 pilots but only 590 serviceable planes.

Sure but that document lists:

Fighter Command could field 52 squadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires, nearly 1,100 aircraft (Table 3). Thus, in terms of single-seat fighters, the opposing air forces were fairly evenly matched, albeit Fighter Command was outnumbered more than 3:1 overall.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kev367th]

11 Group
Spitfire - 8 Sqns , 92 planes
Hurricane - 17 Sqns , 217 planes

12 Group
Spitfire - 5 sqns ,  53 planes
Hurricane - 3 Sqns , 39 planes

13 Group
Spitfire - 6 Sqns , 64 planes
Hurricane - 9 Sdns , 77 planes

Assorted other types
9 Sdns , 98 planes

10 Group I don't have anything detailed at the moment.
Approx 77 Spits
Approx 130 Hurricanes

But even from those figures you can see Dowding clearly expected (correctly) that 11 Group would be hit hardest.
These are total strength, NOT serviceable figures.

At the same time (July 1st) the RAF had 1200 pilots.

Hope that doc arrives soon, hopefully shed a lot of light on the subject.

[MiloMorai]

Deighton's book is more pro LW and anti RAF. Can't be that bad as Kurfy uses it all the time.

You guys keep insisting that 11 Group fought alone. It very much did not. Although the battle took place primarily in 11 Group's area, it is quite clear that both 10 Group and 12 Group were regular participants.

My, my, what happened to the 13 Group Spitfires and Hurricanes? We can now dismiss the 13 squadron of Spits and Hurries (208 a/c) from the total number of s/e  fighter a/c the RAF had to oppose Luftflotte 2 and 3.

Regular participants? Yet 11 Group's claims were the ~sum of the other 3 Group's claims?

Not my claim.

You were the one who posted someone elses claim, ego: your claim. So, so much for that statement since the Brits had no inkling of the BIG attack.

Fighter Command could field 52 squadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires, nearly 1,100 aircraft (Table 3). Thus, in terms of single-seat fighters, the opposing air forces were fairly evenly matched, albeit Fighter Command was outnumbered more than 3:1 overall.

And you can't into your noggin that the LW bombers had priority for RAF fighters.

This being the typical scenario: "S/L Kent of #303 sent 9 of his Hurries to the attack bombers and led the remaining 2 to take on the 50 escorting 109s."

So the theory being the RAF produced all those planes but did not use them in their most desperate hour....

Do we really think the British are that stupid?

That is correct. They all were not in the air at the same time and in the same place unlike the LW which consentrated the greater proportion of their a/c in Luftflotte 2 in Aug and even an even greater proportion in Sept. It is not the Brits that are being stupid.

[Mime]

when fix ta 152 flight models1!!1

[MiloMorai]

A good site on Bob, http://www.battleofbritain.net/0019.html

[MiloMorai]

From the link, Document 15.

"Once Britain realised the value of Enigma and how important a part it could play, it was thought that only two commanders in the Royal Air Force, ACM Hugh Dowding and AVM Keith Park knew of its existence other than certain members of the War Office. In actual fact, historian Martin Gilbert has found that because messages were very slow in being deciphered, the information was often 48 hours old before it could have been handed to Fighter Command, and that Fighter Command C-in-C ACM Hugh Dowding did not know of its existence until October 16th 1940 when Dowding was added to the list of people that were made aware of Enigma's existence. In reality, most 'Ultra' decrypts were of limited value during the Battle of Britain, mainly due to the slow deciphering of the machine. The Germans changed the rotors of the machine daily which meant that each day the British had to determine which had been changed so that any codes could continue to be broken.

It is a well known fact that Enigma was of great assistance to the British from 1941 onwards when they were able to decipher the codes more quickly and efficiently. But it is not a proven fact that Enigma was of any assistance to ACM Hugh Dowding."

[Crumpp]

So When Luftflotte V's mission turned out to be a disaster for the Luftwaffe due to the Pilot training issues, and the Luftflotte V was taken out of the fight, Dowding would have known thru Ultra decrypts, right?

Great article on the Battle of Britain:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Nice point Milo.
Gilbert's work is in a way the best work of WW2 History, and by far the most detailed on day-to-day events globalwise as well as little odds as Enigma, that I have yet seen. The book I have is a heavy read, and rather depressing really, but absolutely full of rather reliable data.
Deighton, - well, yes, he is a bit of a Luftwobble, - but he has man nice points. "Fighter" has some not-to-good patches in it, but also very many interesting points. "Blood, Tears, and Folly" is a very good read, - but since I have seen some cockups in his work, I rather read this with some awareness.
Shores is really good. Detailed and very reliable. Some of his work is a tad dry though.
John Alcorn's article of the top guns of the RAF is very much based on Shores work, with excessive extra work put into it. Some 20 years of research or so.
It must be valued how much work these guys have put into this. I mean, when you add it up, none of us here has enough lifetime to plough through what they did! On top of that, they have had first rate contact with both WW2 pilots and commanders, generals and planners, - both sides.
It all boils down to some conclusions of course, and to be able to look at this all with a clear head.
That said, I must mention Galland and Johnsson, Bader, Rall and the rest.
Their biographies cannot be so easily discarded as "a narrow view".
After all, they were, in the war and/or after, in contact, they had time to compare what they had been going through, they worked together, they were Generals, Air Marshals, Inspectors, and again, friends. They compared their notes, and reading the both sides, there is never the conflict of this thread............

[Crumpp]

After all, they were, in the war and/or after, in contact, they had time to compare what they had been going through, they worked together, they were Generals, Air Marshals, Inspectors, and again, friends. They compared their notes, and reading the both sides, there is never the conflict of this thread...

So at a time when documents where still classified or missing they could sit down and share state secrets with one another to compare notes.

OK.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Well:
"So at a time when documents where still classified or missing"

Their logbooks weren't, and they had been, as Galland, in very high positions.
Guys like Galland CREATED many of the documents.....

[Crumpp]

Their logbooks weren't, and they had been, as Galland, in very high positions.

That has nothing to do with his willingness or anyone else's willingness to divulge state secrets.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Oh, come on, what aspect about the BoB would Galland sit on, years and years after the war had passed?
Those guys joined hands, exchanged informations, worked for NATO, and became good friends. IMHO one of the few "sweet" things in the long list of WW2 aftermath.
Galland went to Bader's funeral. Bader's sons went to Galland's. Rall was a good friend of Johnny Johnsson, Hub Zemke, and Gabresky. When Johnny was buried in England, Rall stayed at his son's home (London).
To sum up, they pretty much compared their stuff, and when you read their work, there is not much of a conflict. So what to divulge?

Speaking of that, there is a lot of data getting lost rather than being retrieved, - the bulk of things adding to history is the refining of available data. I bet Galland saw and got to know stuff that one can not easily find on paper today.
As with Rall. I have got answers from him that I could not find on hundreds of pages.
Sadly, we're loosing them one by one. But their work stayes there.
Did you read Galland? Rall? Johnny? Bader?

[Crumpp]

The Ex-German servicemembers may or may not have had any legal obligations to safeguard secrets of the former German Government depending on the regulations of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The British serviceman very much did have a legal and binding duty to protect classified information.  It is not only the document that is classified, Angus.  It is the information it contains as well.

All the best,

Crumpp