Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogerdee on October 30, 2007, 07:29:35 PM
-
Today on tv in england we had a stupid historian saying that the Battle of Britain should be rewrittern.
He clamed that most of the pilots envolved were porly trained ,could hardly fly straight and couldn't hit a barn door with a cow.
Id love to hit him with a barn door.
this guys was in his late 30s early 40's and he made me ashamed to be nea r that age.this so called Historian needed a swift kick in the rear.
I would like to see how he would manage to take up a hurricane or spitfire at 18 with not many flight hours up against a overwhelming enemy force,go up and try to kill others the same age ,then land and do it all over again numorse times aday day after day.
They were the few and every day they get fewer What they did was almost the impossable.
Historians like this should be sent some where nice and warm
like Bazra.
ok rant over
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=S0QRI5X4URLGTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/30/npilots130.xml
The Few didn't do so bad considering how crappy he says they were. ;)
-
....and still no recognition to the Polish Squadrons that really got the shaft.
-
Thats kinda true though isn't it? Some of the pilots were kids with 4 hours training under their belts max? The Luftwaffe actually did reasonably well fighter vs fighter in the battle. Of course the RAF did better fighter vs bomber. And the RAF had a number of factors in their favour (fuel, bailing over friendly territory etc).
Yes the RAF pilots did put in a massive effort and put their butts on the line as the last line of britains defence. But they weren't super aces or anything as such.
-
To me that's bordering on sacriledge. Seriously.
Mark
-
There's nothing particularly controversial in what the guy's claiming:
1. Many RAF pilots were extremely short of training
2. Tactics - particularly the Area Fighting Tactics favoured by Dowding before the battle, were poor.
3. Rifle caliber bullets were not the best for downing bombers.
4. Many pilots were poor shots.
5. Claims were overstated (by both sides).
6. The Germans never invaded because the Royal Navy would have run them down in The Channel. No need to shoot them, just drive a couple of Cruisers through the invasion fleet and see what the wash did to the barges the Germans were assembling.
7. The role of the RAF was exaggerated by Churchill who desperately needed some kind of victory to keep the British spirit up.
None of this detracts in any way from the bravery of the men of the RAF who knew the odds they were facing and threw everything they had at the Germans.
To get a true reflection of the Battle of Britain, try reading 'Piece of Cake' by Derek Robinson - its a great book.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
To me that's bordering on sacriledge. Seriously.
Mark
Why so?
I think having a realistic point of view of what really happened leads you to have even more respect for the RAF pilots than you would if you believed the old school line. Think of what balls it would take as an 18 year who had 4 hours flight training to go up against the dreaded 109s of the Luftwaffe (who'd just rolled through half of europe).
-
We should never let facts get in the way of legend, eh? And that's not slighting the brave men who died defending Britain from the Luftwaffe. But I'm seeing more "I don't wanna hear anything I perceive as dishonoring my heros!" when the historian was probably just stating the facts behind the battle (his accuracy can still be disputed when it comes to statistics, I suppose). Doesn't make it any less heroic or amazing. Moreso, I'd say.
Some people are just a little too easily disturbed over something they don't even really understand. And that's the problem with contemporary events, not just historical.
*ShruG*
Brave defenders of Britian.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Why so?
I think having a realistic point of view of what really happened leads you to have even more respect for the RAF pilots than you would if you believed the old school line. Think of what balls it would take as an 18 year who had 4 hours flight training to go up against the dreaded 109s of the Luftwaffe (who'd just rolled through half of europe).
You are correct Vulcan. I'm aware of all that but to try to demean in any way or try to reduce the importance of what those young men did at that point in time when the need was the greatest seems a bit cheap. True, Churchill gloryfied them but in doing so it gave the common man a hero. It struck me wrong and I suppose my reaction is emotional.
Mark
-
So called historians who cherry pick the facts to support a predetermined result give me gas.
asw
-
that is amazing!! and I though only we here in the USA suffered fools such as this person.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Why so?
I think having a realistic point of view of what really happened leads you to have even more respect for the RAF pilots than you would if you believed the old school line. Think of what balls it would take as an 18 year who had 4 hours flight training to go up against the dreaded 109s of the Luftwaffe (who'd just rolled through half of europe).
the defense of britian was masterful on all levels, leadership, airmen and code breakers remove any single element and the results would have been markedly different. while we're at it not enough is ever said of the sand demonstarted by the civilian population who took it on the chin night after night. churchill got it right.
now stop this or I will be forced to post at least 15 negative posts about you guys to make up for these two.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
You are correct Vulcan. I'm aware of all that but to try to demean in any way or try to reduce the importance of what those young men did at that point in time when the need was the greatest seems a bit cheap. True, Churchill gloryfied them but in doing so it gave the common man a hero. It struck me wrong and I suppose my reaction is emotional.
Mark
I'll remember that all we're really seeing, at this point, is rogerdee's emotional take on the broadcast . :)
-
Wow..with all these crappy soldiers, sailors and airmen the Allies fielded, it's
amazing that the Axis managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Go ahead..piss all over the generation that was there, after all they didn't have
your 20-20 hindsight about how it was all going to turn out.
Facts are, the RAF did prevent the LW from gaining air superiority without
which they could do didly about the Royal Navy's preventing an amphibious
invasion. They got the job done, whether it stands up to your expert analysis
or not.
-
How about 'they were called and they went'?
Regardless of skills, tactics, equipment, etc.., these young men went to put their lives on the line in defense of their country.
While hindsight is 20 / 20 I do believe that it should be noted in every historical account accurate or inaccurate that the soldiers and airmen of all sides were young men that put their lives on the line every day for what their political masters told them was the 'right' thing.
As I understand it when the bullets start flying you can take all of the politics out of it and it's about surviving, taking care of the man next to you, and making sure you all get home.
Never been there myself and for that I'm honestly ashamed that I haven't served.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Facts are, the RAF did prevent the LW from gaining air superiority without
which they could do didly about the Royal Navy's preventing an amphibious
invasion. They got the job done, whether it stands up to your expert analysis
or not.
Don't think the original post showed the historian challenging those facts, Rino.
Hi, how's things, bro? :)
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
You are correct Vulcan. I'm aware of all that but to try to demean in any way or try to reduce the importance of what those young men did at that point in time when the need was the greatest seems a bit cheap. True, Churchill gloryfied them but in doing so it gave the common man a hero. It struck me wrong and I suppose my reaction is emotional.
Mark
I like emotion. Lets me know Im alive and feeling.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
He clamed that most of the pilots envolved were porly trained ,could hardly fly straight and couldn't hit a barn door with a cow.
Have you ever tried to throw a cow? It's tough man. Really tough.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Have you ever tried to throw a cow? It's tough man. Really tough.
-Sik
However .... when they're asleep .....
(nyuk nyuk) ;)
-
For what they were given to work with, the RAF, including all of their foreign national squadrons, acquitted themselves quite well, regardless of whatever it is someone 67 years removed from the event has to say about it.
While some might want to believe that preventing Germany from achieving air superiority had little to do with preventing an invasion, the reality is that while the British Navy might have been an incredible force, had Germany established air superiority over the Channel, the British Navy would have been hard pressed to operate there. Between German U-boats and German bombers, they'd have had a Hell of a time operating effectively, if at all.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Wow..with all these crappy soldiers, sailors and airmen the Allies fielded, it's
amazing that the Axis managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Go ahead..piss all over the generation that was there, after all they didn't have
your 20-20 hindsight about how it was all going to turn out.
Facts are, the RAF did prevent the LW from gaining air superiority without
which they could do didly about the Royal Navy's preventing an amphibious
invasion. They got the job done, whether it stands up to your expert analysis
or not.
Maybe you should try actually reading what people have posted in this thread instead of reacting to what you think was posted. Especially the original posters post. I dunno what whether this historian said the BOB pilots didn't do much or this is the original posters interpretation, like yours, which could be nothing less than emotional confusion (as opposed listening what is being said).
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thats kinda true though isn't it? Some of the pilots were kids with 4 hours training under their belts max? The Luftwaffe actually did reasonably well fighter vs fighter in the battle. Of course the RAF did better fighter vs bomber. And the RAF had a number of factors in their favour (fuel, bailing over friendly territory etc).
Yes the RAF pilots did put in a massive effort and put their butts on the line as the last line of britains defence. But they weren't super aces or anything as such.
Agh, the pilots had still gone through flight school and had many hours of flight time. What they didn't have was much flight time in the type of a/c they had to go into combat with.
Virgil, one pass up or down the Channel by a flotilla or 2 or 3 of destroyers would have swamped the low and slow (2-4kts) unwieldy freeboard barges of the invasion fleet making their way across at night. The evacuation of Dunkirk cost the RN 6 destroyers which were stationary, and during the day, when lost.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
....and still no recognition to the Polish Squadrons that really got the shaft.
The polish got the ubershaft... We get in a war to liberate the poles and stop aggression by one tyrant only to deliver them into the hands of a bigger tyrant for 50+ years.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
....and still no recognition to the Polish Squadrons that really got the shaft.
Isn't that the truth!!!!!
Obie
-
Didn't you get the memo? Patriotism, is out dated. Pointing out your nations faults, looking at the mistakes that where made, rather than the end result is all the rage. Here in America it is no different. The Hollywood types would love to be able to claim they are anything other than American.
Saying someone or a group of people are hero's is to hard to do. It is easier to point to their faults, or a countries faults. I mean hell look at the GI Joe movie. He is no longer a "Real American hero". Now he is a "Real, multi-national, hero". So rather than be labeled American, the Holly Wood types separate themselves from America as much as they can.
The problem is, being patriotic is a counter-culture. It goes against the media. I watch the Military channel all the time, and there is always some ****** who never served a day in his life in the military, talking out there ass, as if their untrained opinion means something.
I wouldn't get worked up over something the media, or some "historian" says. They are all talking heads, they all have opinions that they think matter. They get paid to talk about things for a living. The people in the know, get paid to do things for a living. You have to be able to separate the rock stars from the groupies. Historians, fall into the groupie category. In short, don't sweat it.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
I mean hell look at the GI Joe movie. He is no longer a "Real American hero". Now he is a "Real, multi-national, hero". So rather than be labeled American, the Holly Wood types separate themselves from America as much as they can.
Well ... in the '80s GI Joe was known in Europe and the rest of the world as ACTION FORCE - International Heroes, and even featured some Soviet heroes as the good guys against Cobra. And the last installment in the series GI Joe - Sigma Six is made in Japan in typical manga style. So I guess the only place GI Joe was a Real American Hero ... was in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCaoBYYj3_I
-
Ah, look at these stout Soviet heroes ... Real American Heroes? I think not! :lol
(http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/joe/OctoberGuard.gif)
-
The BoB is always an interesting theme, now isn't it!
What stands unmentioned here is that the mighty LW lost some 1.200 aircraft together with crew in a timeframe of just a couple of months. It was their finest. The RAF lost what 800 aircraft or so, and some 400 pilots.
This is a remarkable feat, and the LW hardly ever had so much blood drained from them (if you also include quality, and relative size) in WW2 at all!
When the thing was over, the LW could not mount anything like this against Britain in daylight. Never again.
And it drew some punch out of them when they went on about the deal with the USSR!
Then the debate, - was this what stopped an invasion of the British isles? Or was it the RN?
IMHO both. Well, the RN had been and was at the time the biggest navy in the world. So why the concern of aircraft vs the navy, especially when the Dunquerque losses were not so high...?
Here I have to slightly disagree with Milo. While the Dunquerque losses were low, RAF activity over there was quite some, with interceptions over France. Wasn't it over there were Robert-Stanford Tuck had a 5 kill day?
The Barge pulling was supposed to happen at night, with the beach landings at dawn. That gave very little time for the home fleet to engage, but some, as well as air attack and beach front issues as well. It was crucial to have absolute air superiority, only then could this even be attempted.
And where was the LW at the time where the descicion was taken to cancel the invasion?
1000+ aircraft & crew poorer, facing a bigger RAF than they ever had before, as well as finding out that the RAF was indeed NOT only in the south. The LW who had expected to wipe out the RAF in less than a week!
The Germans tried to established air superiority and failed. They tried to bend the British as well with big bombings, and they failed. A sequence of many interesting things lead to this results, and intelligence as well as moral and politics also playd a big part. But a big part was the performance of the RAF as well as Dowding's system. It was a chessgame and the RAF won it by "pawn"
-
Guys like these stopped the invasion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1636755.stm
-
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. - Winston Churchill
-
Remember.
the writer of the article is not the same as the guy who did the study.
And would the article be viewed with such distain if not for the title of the article?
Seems to me it is written intentionally in a way that we here would lable the author of the article. a troll.
Take some facts. And present them in a way that people would take offence to.
Well done!
-
Chopper pilots in Nam were undertrained , unexperienced with low, low hours for the most part.
They are also some of the most awesome pilots on the face of the earth.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The BoB is always an interesting theme, now isn't it!
What stands unmentioned here is that the mighty LW lost some 1.200 aircraft together with crew in a timeframe of just a couple of months. It was their finest. The RAF lost what 800 aircraft or so, and some 400 pilots.
This is a remarkable feat, and the LW hardly ever had so much blood drained from them (if you also include quality, and relative size) in WW2 at all!
True but if memory serves correct. Alot of that ratio had to do with the fact that more then a few downed british pilots were able to either bail out safely over Briton. Or were rescued in the channel and able to re-up. Sometimes in the same day.
Where as more then a few of the german pilots who were shot down became POWS
Still the bravery of the Brit flyers is nothing less then their heroic legend.
Either that or it simply proves that dweebfire pilots didnt need skillz to get get kills in their EZ-Mode planes :p
-
....and still no recognition to the Polish Squadrons that really got the shaft.
In what way?
(http://www.nothingtoseehere.net/images/polish-war-memorial.jpg)
"The RAF recognises 2440 British and 510 overseas pilots who flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940. This group includes 139 Poles, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 29 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 Americans, a Jamaican, a Palestine Jew and a Southern Rhodesian."
They may have got shafted by the US and Britain after the war, but their sacrifice and contribution does not go unrecognised.
-
They really need to make a movie about that lone Jamaican flying with the RAF... "Cool 109 Runnings" or something similar.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
True but if memory serves correct. Alot of that ratio had to do with the fact that more then a few downed british pilots were able to either bail out safely over Briton. Or were rescued in the channel and able to re-up. Sometimes in the same day.
Where as more then a few of the german pilots who were shot down became POWS
Still the bravery of the Brit flyers is nothing less then their heroic legend.
Either that or it simply proves that dweebfire pilots didnt need skillz to get get kills in their EZ-Mode planes :p
Yes :D
The Brits would either die or return normally, while the LW on the registry would either die or become POW's.
And the numbers do not include LW aircraft that returned all shot-up with wounded + dead crew. If you go there, you're closer to 1.500 I suspect.
the famous S-African in the RAF, Malan, would deliberately leave LW aircraft to return all shot up with a wounded pilot/crew. It was also him that bagged Werner Mölders, who left and crashlanded, - wounded. It thereby put Mölders out of the BoB.
-
It's hard to argue against Dr. Cummings when it is just a few quotes from his book in that article.
However what is quoted is nothing new or ground breaking-
"Most Battle of Britain pilots were so badly trained they could not shoot straight, according to new research." and Many were no doubt, without figures of new pilots and experienced pilots i cannot argue for or against this. It should be noted that although lots of inexperienced pilots were replacements for pilots during the BoB, it was also the inexperienced pilots who more much more likely to be shot down. Hence making up the numbers by replacing inexperienced pilots with inexperienced pilots. I would like to see this "new research" though.
"Serious historians recognise that a lot of German bombers that were brought down were stragglers." Well that was no surprise to anyone, probably even non serious historians. It was the same with damaged allied bombers.
The only thing i do disagree with is
"that the RAF's performance against German fighters and bombers in late 1940 was "ineffectual"."
I do find this interesting,"kill/loss ratio" for the key air battle between 24 Aug 24 and September 6, 1940 was "unimpressive"." anyone know what the records say? For all i know it could have been a poor 2 weeks for the RAF. Dr. Cummings definition of unimpressive could be up for debate too.
Regardless, i would read his book (from a library).
Drediock, the RAF had no formal search and rescue service, the chances were you would drown if you ended up in the channel. Several aces did just that IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Why so?
I think having a realistic point of view of what really happened leads you to have even more respect for the RAF pilots than you would if you believed the old school line. Think of what balls it would take as an 18 year who had 4 hours flight training to go up against the dreaded 109s of the Luftwaffe (who'd just rolled through half of europe).
Good point... I think that a good illistration would be: How well would a 2 week "spitdweeb" with only 4 hours in the MA do against a guy from "Das Muppetts" or "JG-11" or even the squad I fly with "False Prophits" one on one? Even in a large scale engagement he would be lucky to escape without leaving large parts of his airplane behind!
-
It just seems to be another part of the current revisionist trend among certain historians trying to give more credit to the Royal Navy. Apparently ignoring the reality that if the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the narrow English channel even the biggest battleship would last five minutes after the attentions of the Stukas.
It's a classic example of someone taking a few truths and using them to produce a conclusion which suits the opinion of the author. It's very common on this forum:lol
-
My great uncle sailed to England in April 1940 to join the RAF.
He passed all tests and went to the OTU.
He was already flying at the time of the BoB, along with many others.
His operational debute in a Spitfire was in the autumn of 1941!
His first sortie got him involved in a 1 vs 2 sit. with 2 109's where he got out with a lot of sweat after the 109's had forgotten themselves in a prolonged dogfight low and slow and got jumped by Spitties.
No 4 hours there I'm afraid.
As for the RN, it was a seriously great force, and as the LW concluded (IMHO rightly), there would be a need for almost absolute air superiocity for operation Sealion to be possible. LW was supposed to keep the RN off.
The four stages of the BoB premium to the landings were basically :(supposed to be)
1. crippling shippings in the channel
2. dealing with the defense and logistics system of the FC/RAF (radar)
3. driving the RAF fighters out or rather destroying them. (from adlertag)
4. Softening the ports of the home fleet (that would i.e. be Portsmouth)
Stage 5 was an attempt to subdue the British through bombing, which had the extra purpose of bringing up fighters en masse.
It failed. But the LW did go about sinking shipping in the channel, and as far as I remember, shipping had to be stopped or limited in daylight. So, already in July 1940, the LW was catching up on anti-shipping.
Although they didn't do so well over Dunquerque, they had their scores in other places like the Norwegian campaign.
So, for the RN having no RAF, it would have been one nasty situation.
-
I don't see why any of you are getting upset.
Statistics aside, any concrete evidence of the RAF pilots' lack of preparation for this battle only adds to the significance of their accomplishments.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thats kinda true though isn't it? Some of the pilots were kids with 4 hours training under their belts max? The Luftwaffe actually did reasonably well fighter vs fighter in the battle. Of course the RAF did better fighter vs bomber. And the RAF had a number of factors in their favour (fuel, bailing over friendly territory etc).
Yes the RAF pilots did put in a massive effort and put their butts on the line as the last line of britains defence. But they weren't super aces or anything as such.
I'd like to see the logbook of the RAF pilot who went into combat with 4 hours on Spits.
Johnny Johnson, who ended up with 38 kills is a good example of a late B of B newbie pilot. He joined 616 Squadron at the end of August He had 23 hours on Spits.
A friend of mine who joined 222 Squadron about the same time had 20 hours on Spits.
Was that complete training? Nope, but they weren't thrown right in either as the squadrons would do what they could to get them time and train them in the squadron's tactics.
I have the logbook of a Canadian pilot who went through Spitfire training at 53 OTU before joining 416 Squadron in December 41, after the B of B by a year. He went to his first operational squadron with 43 hours on Spits.
So basically training time was cut in half to get guys into the fight.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I don't see why any of you are getting upset.
Statistics aside, any concrete evidence of the RAF pilots' lack of preparation for this battle only adds to the significance of their accomplishments.
Hehe, as well as giving a tribute to the chessplaying of Dowding and his commanders, notably Park IMHO.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Didn't you get the memo? Patriotism, is out dated. Pointing out your nations faults, looking at the mistakes that where made, rather than the end result is all the rage. Here in America it is no different. The Hollywood types would love to be able to claim they are anything other than American.
Saying someone or a group of people are hero's is to hard to do. It is easier to point to their faults, or a countries faults. I mean hell look at the GI Joe movie. He is no longer a "Real American hero". Now he is a "Real, multi-national, hero". So rather than be labeled American, the Holly Wood types separate themselves from America as much as they can.
The problem is, being patriotic is a counter-culture. It goes against the media. I watch the Military channel all the time, and there is always some ****** who never served a day in his life in the military, talking out there ass, as if their untrained opinion means something.
I wouldn't get worked up over something the media, or some "historian" says. They are all talking heads, they all have opinions that they think matter. They get paid to talk about things for a living. The people in the know, get paid to do things for a living. You have to be able to separate the rock stars from the groupies. Historians, fall into the groupie category. In short, don't sweat it.
And here I thought gross overreaction was the trend for many as of late. At least, by your final paragraph, I see you're attempting to fight it.
:)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
In what way?
(http://www.nothingtoseehere.net/images/polish-war-memorial.jpg)
"The RAF recognises 2440 British and 510 overseas pilots who flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940. This group includes 139 Poles, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 29 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 Americans, a Jamaican, a Palestine Jew and a Southern Rhodesian."
They may have got shafted by the US and Britain after the war, but their sacrifice and contribution does not go unrecognised.
Memorials? How about not even being invited to the Victory Parade in 1946 for starters. The 303 Squadron had the most kills of ANY RAF squadron in the BoB. Noone ever mentions it.
No need to even touch on how they were treated at Monte Cassino, or how they were sold out by both Roosevelt and Churchill.
Your last sentence pretty much negates your post Dowding. No "memorial" is worth what happened to them.
-
Originally posted by thrila
The only thing i do disagree with is
"that the RAF's performance against German fighters and bombers in late 1940 was "ineffectual"."
I do find this interesting,"kill/loss ratio" for the key air battle between 24 Aug 24 and September 6, 1940 was "unimpressive"." anyone know what the records say? For all i know it could have been a poor 2 weeks for the RAF. Dr. Cummings definition of unimpressive could be up for debate too.
If you go fighter vs fighter the kill/loss ratio favours the LW. If you take bombers into account it favours the RAF.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If you go fighter vs fighter the kill/loss ratio favours the LW. If you take bombers into account it favours the RAF.
You need to consider aircraft destroyed on the ground in the initial waves' of airfield attacks with that figure-Not every plane the RAF had left the ground, either due to a shortage of pilots, or because of maintenance. I'd like to see the number of Air-to-air kills, in that regard.
-
Sorry, I didn't read the rest of the posts but I knew a pilot named BOB (not neubob... get it... knew Bob... neubob). He dint do much.
-
Memorials? How about not even being invited to the Victory Parade in 1946 for starters. The 303 Squadron had the most kills of ANY RAF squadron in the BoB. Noone ever mentions it.
I'm not sure how you would want it 'mentioned'. I mean, do you have a certain percentage threshold on how often it should be 'mentioned' when discussing the BoB? Perhaps you think it should be 'mentioned' in every reference to the BoB?
How about not even being invited to the Victory Parade in 1946 for starters.
A purely political decision based on keeping Moscow sweet. 303 squadron was invited, but declined because the rest of the Polish contingent was excluded. Poland had long since been sold down the river, its forces supposedly should have paraded in Moscow, which brings us onto the next point.
...or how they were sold out by both Roosevelt and Churchill.
It was Churchill that was pressing for autonomy for the Polish nation, certainly not Roosevelt. Roosevelt allowed the Polish government in exile to be dissolved, in a misplaced fear of what Stalin would do and was capable of doing. Churchill even pushed for the US to join the UK in attack on the Soviets, but this was ruled out.
By the time of Potsdam, Britain was marginalised as one of the Big Three. The change of PM in Britain to Atlee, sealed that. Truman had no truck with any British desire to guarantee Polish freedom.
In hindsight, it is easy to condemn the Allies for what they did. It was a betrayal; but given the 6 years of war that was coming to an end, given the ambiguous and exaggerated estimation of Stalin's forces and his frame of mind, would you condemn another generation to another conflict, one that might see widespread usage of atomic weapons? I suspect you would not.
-
Actually again if meory serves correct.
didnt the German pretty much have the Brits on the ropes but in effect let them off by ceasing the attacks on the airfeilds in favor of the cities?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Actually again if memory serves correct, didn't the Germans pretty much have the Brits on the ropes but, in effect, let them off by ceasing the attacks on the airfields in favor of the cities?
I'd phrase it more like "Germany screwed up when Hitler became enraged over a strike on Berlin and redirected his air resources to concentrate on London to punish the British for the insult." Sounds less benevolent or humanitarian in nature and more like what it was. Other than that, I believe you're right.
-
The Germans certainly had the south of England on the ropes when they switched to London. However, they were breathing heavily themselves, and were mostly dealing with 11th group, with some squadrons of 10th and then the 12th when they went further inland.
(Therefore it took them by surprize that the Brits were ready, and armed to their teeth when attacked sideways from Fink's group. Since the German flight was over the North Sea, it was too far for 109 escort. but the mighty 110 was the escort. Anyway, they were met by Spitfires over sea and forced to drop and run home over water with quite some losses. The effort was not repeated)
So, basically the LW was tackling Park with his 111th group. On one fine day in September the LW upped some 1000+ aircraft of which some 600 were 109's. They were tackled by some 200+ of the RAF. (7/9/40?). A few days later (13th?) they repeated the show, and then finally on the 15th that now is called the BoB day.
On the 15th they were assembling on London, and since it was rather well known that this would be the case, 12th group with it's big and cumbersome wings made good contact.
LW went home with a bloody nose and was more baffled than ever that the RAF seemed to be growing. They never knew the truth which was simply that they were managing better to get more aircraft into the fray.
-
I love the movie "Battle of Britain." :)
-
Watched it recently. What a job for it's time! :aok
-
Hitler did not force the Luftwaffe to change targets to London. On the contrary, the war diary of the Wehrmacht High Command blames the failure to gain air superiority on the delay in permission to attack London:
"When the air fleet intended to go over to a large scale attack on London, the permission for such action could at first not be obtained but was given only after repeated urgent requests"
They then complained the weather had turned against them, robbing them of victory.
The truth is elements in the Luftwaffe had wanted to begin the BoB with an all out attack on London. They thought a large air battle would give the 109s the advantage, and after the RAF had been defeated in the air, they would be free to bomb their airfields with impunity. After the mauling they got in August (8% bomber losses), one of the 2 main air fleets was switched to night attacks, and it's fighters stripped to provide increased escorts for the other air fleet.
Even with that step, Luftwaffe strength was bleeding away. They had begun with 1,126 Bf 109 pilots at the end of June, 906 of them fit for duty.
By the end of September, even with the decrease in losses following the switch to London, they had 917 109 pilots, only 676 fit for duty.
In contrast, the RAF had 1,200 fighter pilots at the end of June. The figure is overstated because it includes Blenheim, Defiant and Gladiator pilots, and probably air gunners as well. However, by 7th September, the day the Luftwaffe switched to London, the RAF had 1,381 fighter pilots, an increase over the start of the battle. The following graph illustrates the trend, although it's mistakenly labelled single engined fighter pilots, it includes twin and obsolete types for the RAF:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1148291390_bob3.jpg)
In terms of aircraft, RAF frontline strength increased throughout the battle, and reserves were never exhausted. The Luftwaffe suffered a shortage of aircraft almost from the start, production unable to keep up with losses:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1148290518_bob6.jpg)
The Germans greatly overestimated their victories (about 3 to 1) and underestimated British production. For that reason, whilst they knew their own strength was declining, they thought British strength was declining faster. At times they believed the RAF had less than 200 Spitfires and Hurricanes left, whereas the true figure never went below 700.
The British overestimated their victories by about 1.5 times. However, they overestimated Luftwaffe strength and reserves, and hugely overestimated German production. That's why, in the brief period losses outstripped production, they thought they were losing. They believed the Germans were getting stronger, when they were actually getting much weaker.
-
Originally posted by Engine
They really need to make a movie about that lone Jamaican flying with the RAF... "Cool 109 Runnings" or something similar.
I'd watch it
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hitler did not force the Luftwaffe to change targets to London.
Damn that BOB movie! I feel used! ;)
-
Well, the effect of switching to London was indeed quite some. It gave the plotters some more time, some 20 minutes, so there finally was enough time to get the big wings into the fray. I can imagine the frustration of the LW pilots who had been told over and again that they were after the last 50 Spitfires, when they suddenly started seeing them in swarms up to a 100 - "SCHEISSE"!!!
-
Dowding, I'm not ignoring the fact that the Poles have a war memorial. It was actually constructed by the Poles in 1948. The political atmosphere after the war definately was a contributing factor to how many of the Polish veterans were treated. Some were arrested and detained for years when they returned to a Communist Poland.
Here's a link on the Polish War Memorial.
http://www.nothingtoseehere.net/2006/10/polish_war_memorial.html
As to describe the Poles as being betrayed, again the political climate was again the deciding factor. The allies needed Stalin. A fantastic book with many historical facts can be found here,
http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1333/Kosciuszko%20S.htm
In closing, there were many "forgotten heros" during the BoB. I would prefer to remember their sacrifice, dedication, and honor rather than focusing on who deserves more credit. They are all heros and they should be never forgotten.
Obie
-
Here's the thing.
It's apparently a very thin line that separates measured, responsible, and logical consideration of history from treason. The idea that somehow because one is born in a certain place requires them to deem that place holy (patriotism to some) is to me at least, very un-American.
This does not by any means suggest that an immeasurable degree of honor and respect must be bestowed upon those mostly very young people that took up arms with noble hearts to defend what they held dear. Whether they survived the maelstrom or not They are all to be counted as heroes.
That being said, I find it odd that many tend towards repeating what they are told without the inclination to use the priceless gift of experience to help chart a more prosperous course during future challenges.
WW2 was a product of monumental arrogance, selfishness and hubris. The most powerful nations on the planet allowed a drug addled, uneducated, pauper who evidently possessed the sole gift of being able to work a room to hold the civilized world hostage for the better part of a decade. A known bald faced liar who with a little help from his "friends" time and again made fools of those we deify today.
It was won (or lost) by numbers, and not just the body count. It could be said that Hitler had the war soundly lost the moment he decided to engage Britain, probably even earlier.
Back to the BoB. I wasn't there. I only have the benefit of what I've learned. From what I can surmise, even the British knew they were not up to the task of fighting off Germany. They well understood the facts and the odds, and were understandably very alarmed.
Were it not for the timely deployment of radar and the irresponsible fashion in which Hitler directed his assets, only God knows where we'd be today.
Though they certainly contributed, the BoB was not won by a couple of hundred out gunned, quickly deployed, YOUNG men's cockpit performance.
That's why for the most part the nations of the world preach eternal vigilance. It would be a crime to allow a future conflagration to erupt after we saw how close you can come to defeat by not keeping your blade sharp.
The idea that the R.A.F managed to violate every principle of military readiness (short training cycles, poor provisioning and logistics, last war tactics) and still managed to field a deadlier fighting force than they were confronted with just insults those who labor at honing their skills in order to effectively contribute to the defense of their nation.
God that was a long sentence. Sorry.
Just my $.02
-
Originally posted by Thruster
It could be said that Hitler had the war soundly lost the moment he decided to engage Britain, probably even earlier.
Possibly, but I think his real mistake was to take on the Soviets before he had finished off Britain. Japan certainly didn't help either by bringing the US into the war.
-
Well, Hitler could have chosen NOT to stand by the tripact deal and left USA out of his equation. That would have been a twist!
Let's see, - then he would not have had to prepare for a western invasion, and the shop would have been open with the USA. Britain could never conquer Germany and Hitler could have directed almost his full force (except the airforce and elements in the desert war) on to the USSR.
Attacking the USSR while at war with the UK was perhaps dicey, but when he declared war on the USA it was really over IMHO.
-
germany lost the war because hitler was a moron and not with any fault in the german forces.
-
nah, germany lost the war and got its arse kicked because the germans were servile enough to follow a jumped-up little mad headed freak in a quest for world domination.
-
british military intelligence concluded that it was better if hitler were not whacked but allowed to live because his idiocy would cause the collapse of the german military far quicker than any external effort ever could were there to be competent leadership in his stead.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
A purely political decision based on keeping Moscow sweet.
Which negates all.
-
If my memory serves me, Churchill was all for Poland being a Sovereign State after WW2. Stalin wanted to have the grip there, and Roosevelt was the third man who could have made the difference, but didn't.
-
Originally posted by Angus
If my memory serves me, Churchill was all for Poland being a Sovereign State after WW2. Stalin wanted to have the grip there, and Roosevelt was the third man who could have made the difference, but didn't.
Monte Cassino proved the Poles fate. They were sold out on Sept. 1st, 1939.
-
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yalta_Conference
"Premier Stalin refused to travel farther West than the Black Sea resort of Yalta, in the Crimea. Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt asked for Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan proper; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin established a Russian sphere of political influence in Eastern Europe, as essential to the USSR's national security."
Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern Europe (specifically Poland);
-
Stalin played Churchill and Roosevelt for his own political gains. He never trusted the allies. Patton was right in the end. As far as the Soviet Union assisting the U.S. with the Japanese, Stalin never attacked the Japanese until August 8th, 1945. After the atomic bomb was dropped. Yet, Roosevelt asked for assistance in in February 1945. You have to ask yourself, why would the Soviets have waited.
Monte Cassino proved the Poles fate. They were sold out on Sept. 1st, 1939.
This was another sad truth for the Poles. Not to mention all the supplies that were dropped to the Polish Home Army only to be taken from them by the Soviets. The Home Army used whatever they could get their hands on.
Obie
-
The Poles were not used in the battles for Monte Cassino until the 4th battle beginning on May 11 1944.
Britons, Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans, French, Canadians and Indians also took part in the battles.
-
"Monte Cassino proved the Poles fate. They were sold out on Sept. 1st, 1939."
Call me slow, but I don't get this statement.
And BTW, the Baltic states as well as Poland were "sold out", - which was a Nazi-USSR deal. The first maneuvers actually were in the Baltic, before Germany invaded Poland, and that was USSR on the move.
Anyway, the "sell-out" is well described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Stalin_pact
One input against Poland:
"The Soviet Union marshalled 466,516 soldiers, 3739 tanks, 380 armored cars, and approximately 1,200 fighters, 600 bombers, and 200 other aircraft against Poland.["
Not sure if the image works:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Davidlowrendezvous.png)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Call me slow, but I don't get this statement.
The Poles were massacred needlessly at Monte Cassino.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Poles were not used in the battles for Monte Cassino until the 4th battle beginning on May 11 1944.
Britons, Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans, French, Canadians and Indians also took part in the battles.
...and? I realize and know that the 8th Army was also used. The Poles were sent to slaughter.
-
And at Arnhem? And why do you bind Monte Cassino and 1/9 1939 into the same sentence?
As a sidenote, the Polish were often frustrated about NOT being in the heat of these and those battles. That was also the case in the BoB, and the reason was communication and probably spiced with some British conservatism...
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
....and still no recognition to the Polish Squadrons that really got the shaft.
The Poles knew what they were up against more so than the Brits..That's why they were the best sqd in the battle.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And why do you bind Monte Cassino and 1/9 1939 into the same sentence?
Read your post to which I replied in 2 sentences, not a single sentence as you refer.
-
Angus, Mash, I think you're both talking about the same thing, just wording it differently. I think we've hijacked this thread a little. You two seem to know more than the average BBS subscriber regarding the contributions the Polish armed forces contributed.
Being of Polish decent myself, I've found the contributions by the Poles to be nothing short of astonishing. Some interesting links are:
http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/history/WWII/britain/link.shtml
http://www.ww2.pl/?
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9764/warpoland.html
And to prove that I'm still learning things, I never knew that a Polish soldier was the first to make a working prototype mine detector! Hope everyone enjoys the websites.
Obie
-
last link you provide have picture of africa corps troops signed as "Polish troops", lol
-
Polish mathematicians also were the first to read Enigma ;)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
last link you provide have picture of africa corps troops signed as "Polish troops", lol
I noticed that too! Stupid Pentagon web-site! Maybe that was a Pole racing by on the motorcycle in the background? :D
Obie
-
The Polish are the only ones to have successfully taken Moscow in a military campaign (in 1610). :lol
-
Hehe. But didn't old Bony take Moscow as well?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe. But didn't old Bony take Moscow as well?
well, he walk in to abandon city, anyway Poles where with him as well......
-
Back to the BoB.
The Polish were held a bit back in the beginning. When did they enter at full force?
(Brimming with aggressiveness and lust for revenge no doubt)
And a little input from a RAF pilot who didn't like Poles in his squad, especially not as a wingman! He said that they were famous for going red-hot against any LW aircraft as son as seen, and that is not good latin, if you see (or especially don't see!) your wingman just diving away from you. Now, we can do this in AH, and maybe get away with it, - we will still live another day. But in RL....?
My point there is, was that also a factor when Poles were formed rather in entire squad? (of course moral etc etc, but language really comes MUCH slower that way. I know Poles that have been in my country for up to 10 years, and NEITHER master our native language, nor English!!!! Just Polish and some broken basics.)
Always good to ponder on things I think.
And as a sidenote, weren't the Poles mostly quite experienced fighter pilots (apart from fast birds like the Spitty)? More or less, and had already been fighting the LW? Same goes to the Czhechs?
-
Originally posted by Angus
And as a sidenote, weren't the Poles mostly quite experienced fighter pilots (apart from fast birds like the Spitty)? More or less, and had already been fighting the LW? Same goes to the Czhechs?
(http://wio.ru/polska/p11.jpg)
P11 to AH!!!1
(I'm suprised I'm the first one in here to say it...)
From what I've read, yes, they did quite well against the LW while being taken over by Germany.
From Wikipedia...
By 1 September 1939, the fighter squadrons had been deployed to remote airfields, so they were not bombed by the Germans. During the Polish campaign, the P.11 fought against more modern German bombers and fighters. Not only were the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110 faster and better armed, but also most German bombers were faster. Since the P.11 fighters were intensively used, their maximum speed was even lower than the theoretical 375 km/h. The P.11a were in an even worse condition. Another serious deficiency was their small number which meant that missions involving groups larger than about 20 planes were rarely accomplished and reserve machines were practically unavailable.
On the other hand, the Polish planes had better manoeuvrability and because of their design, had much better vision from the cockpit than the German planes. The P.11 had a strong construction, good rate of climb and could operate from short fields, even rough ones. It was also of a very durable construction and could dive at up to 600 km/h without risk of the wings falling apart. Theoretically the only limit in manoeuvres was the pilot's ability to sustain high g forces. Despite the German superiority, the P.11 managed to shoot down a considerable number of German aircraft, including fighters, but suffered heavy losses as well. The exact numbers are not fully verified, but it appears that at least one German plane shot down for each P.11 lost (a figure of 141 German planes is often given as compared with 118 planes lost).
At dawn on 1 September, Capt. Mieczysław Medwecki flying a PZL P.11c was shot down by a German Ju 87, having the dubious honour of becoming the first aircraft shot down in the Second World War. The first Allied air victory was achieved 20 minutes later by Medwecki's wingman, Wladyslaw Gnys who shot down two Dornier Do 17s with his P.11c. The PZL P.11c was also the first airplane to successfully ram an enemy plane in the Second World War. The first large air battle of the Second World War took place in the early morning of 1 September over the city of Nieporęt in North-Western Poland when a German bomber group of about 70 Heinkel He 111 and Dornier Do 17 was intercepted by some 20 P.11 and 10 P.7 fighters and had to abandon their mission to Warsaw.
Not sure if its accurate, but it sounds pretty good to me. :O
-
Hehe, killing 2 Dorniers in that is quite a feat!
However, the P-11 top diving speed is not far from Spit I's flat out level speed...Even Hurricanes would see more than 500 mph on their gauges from time to time in a dive.....
Anyway, many interesting Polish pilots, names like Skalsky come to mind.
And the Czech....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Back to the BoB.
The Polish were held a bit back in the beginning. When did they enter at full force?
(Brimming with aggressiveness and lust for revenge no doubt)
And a little input from a RAF pilot who didn't like Poles in his squad, especially not as a wingman! He said that they were famous for going red-hot against any LW aircraft as son as seen, and that is not good latin, if you see (or especially don't see!) your wingman just diving away from you. Now, we can do this in AH, and maybe get away with it, - we will still live another day. But in RL....?
My point there is, was that also a factor when Poles were formed rather in entire squad? (of course moral etc etc, but language really comes MUCH slower that way. I know Poles that have been in my country for up to 10 years, and NEITHER master our native language, nor English!!!! Just Polish and some broken basics.)
Always good to ponder on things I think.
And as a sidenote, weren't the Poles mostly quite experienced fighter pilots (apart from fast birds like the Spitty)? More or less, and had already been fighting the LW? Same goes to the Czhechs?
are you trying to insult Poles?
Polish AF was 3rd force in a row of western allies, after USAF and RAF
Some does not like Polish troops in British squadrons, sure.
Some of RAF pilots does not like Canadians, Australians, South Africans, Indians as well.
Hot head? don't think so. Those who where send as replacement for RAF squad had at list good knowledge of English, as well as mastered air-air combat. Most of them had already couple confirmed aerial victories. They know how to do the job.
Many of them start service in June of 1940.
Mby experienced in air combat pilots don't like to be slaughter as RAF pilots was. Flying wingtip to wingtip coses many unnecessary RAF losses.
Oh, thats long story. It cost many life's
But could be tweak in to "bad Polish wingman" story.
More, ever heard of 4 finger formation?
Those of Polish pilots who had very basic knowledge of English (mostly cuz they learn French as they second language), where group in Polish squadrons under RAF command (303rd, 302nd and more).
During the Battle of Britain, between August 30th and October 11th, No. 303 Squadron tallied 126 enemy aircraft destroyed, 13 probably destroyed and 9 damaged.
I know Poles that have been in my country for up to 10 years, and NEITHER master our native language, nor English!!!! Just Polish and some broken basics.)
If they don't have reason for that, why bother? Also some people are brighter then others, i guess none of them are rocket scientist but regular workers, right? In this kind of work witch don't require sophisticated knowledge of your language.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
He clamed that most of the pilots envolved were porly trained ,could hardly fly straight and couldn't hit a barn door with a cow.
He probably doesn't understand that not flying straight is right out of Manfred's handbook, and someone who could hit a barn door with a cow: I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.
-
Originally posted by Obie303
Angus, Mash, I think you're both talking about the same thing, just wording it differently. I think we've hijacked this thread a little. You two seem to know more than the average BBS subscriber regarding the contributions the Polish armed forces contributed.
Being of Polish decent myself, I've found the contributions by the Poles to be nothing short of astonishing. Some interesting links are:
http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/history/WWII/britain/link.shtml
http://www.ww2.pl/?
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9764/warpoland.html
And to prove that I'm still learning things, I never knew that a Polish soldier was the first to make a working prototype mine detector! Hope everyone enjoys the websites.
Obie
I'm also of Polish descent. Until I mentioned the Poles, they again, were just left out. BoB wasn't just "Britain vs Germany".
Obie, I've read a few accounts on the events leading up to the bombing of Warsaw. Polish pilots would run their PZL.11's out of ammo and ram Ju88's.
But it was for naught eventually. The Allies made a deal with the Devil and sold out the very country in exile that fought with everything to lose.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
are you trying to insult Poles?
Yes. Hence the misc. ramblings of the language learning bit, as well.
Originally posted by ramzey
During the Battle of Britain, between August 30th and October 11th, No. 303 Squadron tallied 126 enemy aircraft destroyed, 13 probably destroyed and 9 damaged.
Yep. The most kills of any RAF Squadron in the BoB. They were hated by RAF and most English at first. But, the more the English civilians and RAF pilots saw how they carried themselves, they were heroes.
One day I will go to the Memorial and to Warsaw. I'll wait until my 6 year old son is old enough to understand the big picture and how they were treated.
More over <> ramzey. You and I have had some go arounds, but all is forgotten after your post. I'll be in California either in 2008 or 2009. I've got to share some drinks with Wolfala, you and your spouses.
-
Until I mentioned the Poles, they again, were just left out.
There you go again. You seem to expect that whenever BoB is mentioned, the Poles should be patted on the back and raised on a plinth to much fanfare.
-
The story of Gnys shooting down two Dorniers on September 1, the story is true. Here is another story that many people don't know;
"On September 12, 1939, Lt. Jan Falkowski, an instructor at the Polish Aviation Training Center, was flying a PWS 26 from Lublin to Sokal when three Messerschmitt Bf109 fighters spotted his fabric-covered biplane. Anticipating an easy victory, the three Germans promptly attacked. It was a big mistake. Fully aerobatic, the PWS was one of the finest trainers in pre-war Europe. With Lt. Falkowski at the controls, the three Germans received a "master class" in the art of dogfighting. In a remarkable exhibition of flying skill, Lt. Falkowski outmaneuvered the advanced Bf109s, causing one to crash in flames and the others to withdraw in frustration."
(http://[IMG]http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff186/obie303/imgage-13.jpg)[/IMG]
(I happen to own this print). To say that the Polish pilots were not well trained was untrue.
The Czech's did have a squadron that took place during the BoB. They were the 312 Squadron. Josef Frantisek (a Czech) was flying with the Polish Air Force since July 1939 and was the highest scoring pilot during the BoB with 17 victories and 1 probable. Frantisek flew with the 303 squadron. Sadly, Frantisek was killed in an accident in 40'
Obie
-
Originally posted by Dowding
There you go again. You seem to expect that whenever BoB is mentioned, the Poles should be patted on the back and raised on a plinth to much fanfare.
I merely spoke the truth. Sorry you feel "differently".
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Poles were massacred needlessly at Monte Cassino.
cassino was a meat grinder for the allies, lack of armour support at crucial times and the courage and tenacity of crack german paras made them pay dearly for every inch of ground they took. sorry this is off topic, but i have in the past heard the claim that the poles were used badly at cassino but not an explanation as to why, so im just curious as to how so. im more farmilar with the nz involvment at cassino so im far from an expert on the subject, so i could be easily wrong here but from what ive heard i understand the germans had started retreating from the cassino area when the poles assaulted the ruins of the abbey, which if so, begs the question was the poles assualt into the teeth of the remaining defenders too late in the fighting to justify the high casualties they suffered? Is that what you mean by massacred needlessly?
also i agree 100% with you. that moral mountain that the allies stood on became the size of an ant hill when they screwed the poles out of liberty.
-
The Few (Mann, Cruise) will be coming out soon, and we will learn the truth about the Battle of Britian.
-
You left out Affleck :D
Anyway:
"The Allies made a deal with the Devil and sold out the very country in exile that fought with everything to lose."
If you mean by not immediately opening a front between France and Germany, then enlighten me please.
-
Masherbrum, what I should have said is:
"You seem to expect that whenever BoB is mentioned, the Poles should be patted on the back and raised on a plinth to much fanfare, above all others, depite the fact that they were the best scoring minority, but a minority all the same. "
At the end of day it was a team effort. Without the Poles the battle would have been very difficult, but without the rest of the RAF the Poles could never have won. That is the truth.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
cassino was a meat grinder for the allies, lack of armour support at crucial times and the courage and tenacity of crack german paras made them pay dearly for every inch of ground they took. sorry this is off topic, but i have in the past heard the claim that the poles were used badly at cassino but not an explanation as to why, so im just curious as to how so. im more farmilar with the nz involvment at cassino so im far from an expert on the subject, so i could be easily wrong here but from what ive heard i understand the germans had started retreating from the cassino area when the poles assaulted the ruins of the abbey, which if so, begs the question was the poles assualt into the teeth of the remaining defenders too late in the fighting to justify the high casualties they suffered? Is that what you mean by massacred needlessly?
also i agree 100% with you. that moral mountain that the allies stood on became the size of an ant hill when they screwed the poles out of liberty.
all true, but
do you think Germans would abandon Cassino if there will be not another assault coming?
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway:
"The Allies made a deal with the Devil and sold out the very country in exile that fought with everything to lose."
If you mean by not immediately opening a front between France and Germany, then enlighten me please.
you are slow learner as for icelanders i know...........
dig around Tehran '43 conference
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Masherbrum, what I should have said is:
"You seem to expect that whenever BoB is mentioned, the Poles should be patted on the back and raised on a plinth to much fanfare, above all others, depite the fact that they were the best scoring minority, but a minority all the same. "
At the end of day it was a team effort. Without the Poles the battle would have been very difficult, but without the rest of the RAF the Poles could never have won. That is the truth.
This is all true. What Mash was talking about was the Poles didn't get any recognition for their efforts. And the truth still applies today. Whenever anyone mentions the BoB, the Poles are still left out.
Take a look at the original movie, The Battle of Britain. The Poles were depicted as babbling idiots and the squadron leader kept yelling at them to shut up. I wonder if John Kent would have thought that was an accurate depiction. (Kent was the CO of the 303).
Obie
-
Originally posted by ramzey
all true, but
do you think Germans would abandon Cassino if there will be not another assault coming?
you are slow learner as for icelanders i know...........
dig around Tehran '43 conference
You then do not know squat, for you fell for the bait, I have already quoted on this thread what happened in Teheran.
Churchill wanted Poles to be free, Stalin not, and FDR was the odd man. Go figure!
-
Originally posted by Angus
You then do not know squat, for you fell for the bait, I have already quoted on this thread what happened in Teheran.
Churchill wanted Poles to be free, Stalin not, and FDR was the odd man. Go figure!
Wrong. Churchill and FDR needed the Devil to win the war. Every book I have ever read on the subject states this. Paint the picture any way you wish, it ends up being the same picture.
-
Originally posted by Obie303
This is all true. What Mash was talking about was the Poles didn't get any recognition for their efforts. And the truth still applies today. Whenever anyone mentions the BoB, the Poles are still left out.
Obie
:aok
-
Originally posted by ramzey
all true, but
do you think Germans would abandon Cassino if there will be not another assault coming?
no, they wern't quitters and it must have been pretty evident from the determination and stubbiness they displayed in the earlier cassino battles that they were going to slug it out to the bitter end and take a heavy toll on the allies as they had done right through the cassino campaign. it seems to me that the allies tactic of using disjointed and under strength assault forces backfired badly and only played in to german hands, which ensured a long drawn out casualty fest. beats me why they didnt throw the kitchen sink at the germans from the very start (and i dont mean blowing the crap out of the monastery), or at least by the time of the indian - nz assaults, by using an overwhelming force including the poles who were chomping at the bit to get at the germans. nz troops learned in crete that the best way to deal with german paras was to get in their face with bullet and bayonet and stay there i.e keep them off balance. if given the time to organize and form counter attacks as eventually happened in crete and repeatedly at cassino the paras were a punishing foe
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wrong. Churchill and FDR needed the Devil to win the war. Every book I have ever read on the subject states this. Paint the picture any way you wish, it ends up being the same picture.
?
And who do you refer to as the Devil?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yalta_Conference
"Premier Stalin refused to travel farther West than the Black Sea resort of Yalta, in the Crimea. Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt asked for Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan proper; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin established a Russian sphere of political influence in Eastern Europe, as essential to the USSR's national security."
Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern Europe (specifically Poland);
There it was...in this very thread ;)