Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You also have no idea what I'm talking about. Again.
Arras, 1940.

This was a local counter-attack and considering the allied communication ( or lack of it) it is more a surprise that they got it going than a surprise that it almost achieved something worth talking about. At best it held up the German offensive for 24 hours( on the 24th) and made the more paranoid Generals feel abit more so. If the Brits waited for the French attack and combined their efforts with it it might have very well cost the Germans a few days. If you want to call this some kind of victory your clearly grasping at straws and the historic record will shut you down faster than you can grasp at new one's.

There was no French attack of any significant size for this to have combined with.

And you said that in the near future the Germans would destroy the British wherever they saw them (and implied that this would be so for some time to come). I gave you an example of where this was simply not true, an expample that showed that Blitzkrieg was not an unstoppable juggernaut, better yet it was an attack on the "high-priest" of Blitzkrieg, Erwin Rommel himself. I could have spoken about the Lofoten Islands or Vaagso...

Arras 1940 is the eqivalent of the Battle of the Bulge, it demonstrated that perceived invincibility was a myth, but did nothing to aid the overall war-effort.

edit: damn quotes...

[edit on 7-2-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]

This is getting out of hand and I just can't believe that this thead hasn't been closed yet

Allmost the whole second half of it aint worth reading.

Come on guys!

When is the last time someone posted something about the fastest piston fighter.....hmmm???



[edit on 7-2-2006 by vorazechul]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Read again, you tw@t. Note, carefully, that ch calls the Battle of Britain MY greatest moment...

And it turns out that it's accurate even if said in mistake.Even when his wrong his right.

As I pointed out, I am not British. I am Australian. Waynos, however, is British, therefore it is his "finest hour", not mine and it was ch's mistake to address his statement to me and not Waynos.

No one cares about your nationality. That is my point. Go to the politics forum if that's the type of of discussion you like given that Ch can at least manage more than just base in insult and ignorent speculation.

If you cannot understand this you should go back to English classes and learn to read.You, clearly, cannot see Amazonian jungles for all the trees in the way.

I will brush up on my English if you go brush up on most things related to China and the second world war. I reckon i will be done before you.

Read again. Carefully. If you cannot understand put your hand up and ask a question and maybe the teacher will be kind enough to answer it for you.

I guess you will follow the same tactic as last time and hope the thread gets closed due to your childish attacks. It's either that or looking ignorent on topic. We all make our choices i guess.

Stellar

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
There was no French attack of any significant size for this to have combined with.

Had they waited as they should have there could/would have been . That was in fact the plan even if you seem so unaware of it.

And you said that in the near future the Germans would destroy the British wherever they saw them (and implied that this would be so for some time to come).

Yes and it's accurate on scale and in strategic importance.

I gave you an example of where this was simply not true, an expample that showed that Blitzkrieg was not an unstoppable juggernaut, better yet it was an attack on the "high-priest" of Blitzkrieg, Erwin Rommel himself. I could have spoken about the Lofoten Islands or Vaagso...

No one said it was unstoppable just that it was NOT stopped and that the allies were patently incapable of fighting the kind of war that was visited upon them. Now arguing with that you can do as much as you like. Nice job with the straw man your destroying. Did you not see me behind you?

Arras 1940 is the eqivalent of the Battle of the Bulge, it demonstrated that perceived invincibility was a myth, but did nothing to aid the overall war-effort.

Anyone who believes in invincible Germans should leave the discussion now as they do not belong here. The fact that so many perceived Germany to be invinceble is nothing but denying their own mistakes and ignorence of what modern war would be like. The Germans did very few new things ( that contributed to the fall of the low countries and France) had anyone cared to look at what was happening in the first world war. I honestly do not know who you are arguing with and it might in fact be better if you just pick a random name on the forum and assume what they will say before attacking them. I could really spend my time in a more usefull manner.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The Germans did very few new things ( that contributed to the fall of the low countries and France) had anyone cared to look at what was happening in the first world war. I honestly do not know who you are arguing with and it might in fact be better if you just pick a random name on the forum and assume what they will say before attacking them. I could really spend my time in a more usefull manner.

Stellar

This makes no sense to me ,sure lessons may and should have been learned from german tactics during there participation in the spanish civil war, but Implying that German tactics from the first world war to the invasion of western europe in the late 1930's had hardly changed is wrong I cant think off the top of my head of any lightning German advance accross many countries using thousand of airbourne troops and tanks during 1914-1918 though im sure you be able to enlighten me.

Originally posted by buckaroo
This makes no sense to me ,sure lessons may and should have been learned from german tactics during there participation in the spanish civil war,

First world war....

but Implying that German tactics from the first world war to the invasion of western europe in the late 1930's had hardly changed is wrong

Being as polite as i can be i must tell you that it is in fact so. The Germans stuck with what worked and improved on the same ideas learning from their mistakes and not assuming what worked once would do so again in isolation.

I cant think off the top of my head of any lightning German advance accross many countries using thousand of airbourne troops and tanks during 1914-1918 though im sure you be able to enlighten me.

The airborne troops were largely a diversion as the real death blow did not come from the area they were employed in. The Germans could appreciate what tanks could do not having as many of their own and thus built this into their strategy. If one goes back and look at the 1918 German March offensive one would have noticed the lightly burdened shock-troops( spraying bullets with machine-pistols) the very skilled combat engineers and even groud strafing by close support aircrafy. The signs were there for those who cared to look.

Stellar

Originally posted by buckaroo
I would agree that the raids on Berlin in 1940 escalated the Nazi regimes willingness to escalate the sustained air attacks on London and the long list of other British cities , but the three night raids on Berlin in late August 1940 by the RAF were not to "piss off" Hitler there was a public outcry in london and around the country as a whole to the accidental Luftwaffe bombings of August 24th.

Public outcry? You can create those you know. Either way he used the oppertunity to test Hitler guessing what he would do given the promises Hitler had made to Berliners. The size and duration of the raids indicates that he was not letting up untill getting the desired result i think.

Yes the raids caused minimal damage to the German war machine but you can call it a moral boosting victory for the British people,

These are things leaders say to try impress the public while the men sent to do the job die screaming. Morale boosting is hardly something you have to do when you can win the old fashioned way and it does not fool intelligent people.

and dont forget that however little physical impact the RAFS raids to"piss off Hitler" had, it was the first time Berlin had been bombed, something that the Luftwaffe assured Hitler and the German people could never happen.

They would hardly have been building anti-aircraft guns if they did not expect Berlin to get bombed. Goering being who he was may have said many things but were not believed by anyone of note. Hitler assumed that he was dealing with a rational opponent but Churchill was willing to sacrfice London so Hitler tried to oblige him. It's been shown that Hitler was not much fascinated with destroying historic cities with all that entailed and if Churchill left it alone i do not believe Hitler would have bombed London. It was a cynical move by a man would would win a war at any cost even if his own actions increased said cost.

If you can prove to me that Churchills intention in authorising the raids on Berlin were to divert attention on to London rather than this just being a co- incedental by product of the Nazi determination to exact revenge for the Berlin bombings then please do so ,

I should not have to but i will if your not willing to go do your homework.

but I think that this is a little far fetched, there have been so many attacks on Churchills poliecies during the war with regard tothe air war,

For good reason.

example,did he let Coventry burn in November 1940 to help protect vital security secrets?(some thing to do with Enigma if I recall) , no he was led to believe (incorectly) the raids were to be aimed at london and the south of England.

Imo he did not know in time to change anything about it even if he melodramatically claimed that he made the choice. He should talk about London but i guess he realised how history would have judged him for that one.

Stellerx i dont want to fight with you im new to this site, and was enjoying an interesting thread on piston aircraft which has gone wildly off topic I was simply upset by your choice of phrasing ,

Your only going to have to fight me if you assume that reading one or two books about the second world war ( and watching discovery channel) makes you informed enough to attack others over. I dont argue unless i have allready checked the facts and made sure that i am on the good side of them. If your unwilling to check( or assume the huge risks otherwise) each and every fact you mention online its best you listen and learn as i did for most of my time online.

I have already conceeded to you that many of your points are valid, although we arrive at them via differant thought trains , maybe this is the basis of an interesting thread else where on the site regarding war time decision making , I dont know.

You do not have to concede the points to me as their mostly points prominent historians made and defended in full. I am not arrogant enough to make up theories and then defend them as if their gods words. When i say something it's likely that i can defend it quoting from historic text by respected historians and authors. I have considered making a thread about the myths of the second world war and will probably get it started once i have some more time....

Stellar

Stellar, you are very disdainful of the whole episode, but I would say that desperate times call for desparate measures. How else was the RAF going to win this battle? You say you have, and have read, many such ideas. I confess that I have not seen a credible alternative so I invite you to enlighten me as to how fighter command was to avoid destruction and win the battle any other way.

Besides which the tactics were never my argument, which was made clear in my last post, if not earlier.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Read again, you tw@t. Note, carefully, that ch calls the Battle of Britain MY greatest moment...

And it turns out that it's accurate even if said in mistake.Even when his wrong his right.

As I pointed out, I am not British. I am Australian. Waynos, however, is British, therefore it is his "finest hour", not mine and it was ch's mistake to address his statement to me and not Waynos.

No one cares about your nationality. That is my point. Go to the politics forum if that's the type of of discussion you like given that Ch can at least manage more than just base in insult and ignorent speculation.

If you cannot understand this you should go back to English classes and learn to read.You, clearly, cannot see Amazonian jungles for all the trees in the way.

I will brush up on my English if you go brush up on most things related to China and the second world war. I reckon i will be done before you.

Read again. Carefully. If you cannot understand put your hand up and ask a question and maybe the teacher will be kind enough to answer it for you.

I guess you will follow the same tactic as last time and hope the thread gets closed due to your childish attacks. It's either that or looking ignorent on topic. We all make our choices i guess.

Stellar

You really are as thick as two short planks, aren't you?

For those who came in late...

The reason I brought nationality into it was to show ch that he was using the wrong tactic to debate/denigrate/insult the wrong person.

He said I was British.

I am not.

You, however, are proving yourself a fool by hanging onto an error in a desparate attempt to avoid the inevitable.

You did not understand the original post, you have not understood any post since.

How the hell can ch be accurate if he calls the Battle of Britain mine when I am not from Britain?

When he is wrong...he is wrong. And you are only more so.

If we were discussing the Battle of Australia then it would be accurate to call it mine...

China? Talk about red herrings in a thread now dominated by them...

So, who is ignorant here?

As you can't even get the small details right...well, I think I'm safe in my knowledge of World War 2.

Not sure whose signature it is, but..."A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something."

Put another way: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

No-one cares about your nationality. That is my point. Go to the politics section if that's the type of of discussion you like given that Ch can at least manage more than just base in insult and ignorent speculation

Then why did ch bring nationality into it by calling me British? And as for managing more than insults...never mind...your ignorant intransigence in the face of facts is beginning to make my head hurt...

And having threads closed is never my goal, that prevents discussion, which prevents learning, although with some people I wonder what the point is...

Originally posted by waynos
Yes, its a scientific term used in reference to the periodic table. It is not a measure of time.

Actually, "periodicity" is not only a perfectly valid property regarding time-based measurements (the period of a waveform is measured in time, and the amount to which data, commonly something like sales, corresponds to periodic intervals can be called "periodicity") but also it is an accepted term in historical classification - the manner in which we find CH1466 using the term:

Originally posted by CH1466I believe I made firm mention of periodicity as an argument for breaking down the 'best of the best' by historical period. Surely I did.

Ignoring simple dictionaries (as one, i suppose should when checking technical terms in any particular field), a quick google search for "historical" and "periodicity" will result in many hits which, when read, reveal that often historians or academians discussing historical periods will use the term to refer to "periodicity" in a manner much like CH1466 did.

Initially, one would think that something as simple as word usage should be relagated to u2u's, but upon further inspection, more is going on here.

CH1466 has been occused by some of being oblique and using terms difficult for the uninitiated to understand, and your critique with respect to his usage of this word adds to the fervor.

I, for one, applaud his ability to write with technically appropriate terms, acronyms, etc... and would encourage him, and others like him, to simply define some things which may not be clear to all... Some posts of his have indeed encouraged me to open some of my dusty Air War College texts, for both linquistic and historical data, but so far he has not swayed by much from the mark. Of course, on his analysis and opinions, fire at will

But do such dry technical terms have a place on an informal discussion board?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs but this is not a word in common currency in the English language, for all its technical correctness. By the way, I'm not trying to contradict you here, just saying.

Originally posted by waynos
Stellar, you are very disdainful of the whole episode, but I would say that desperate times call for desparate measures.

I happen to think Britain could have been defended with less loss of British life and i apologise if that somehow makes me disdainful.

How else was the RAF going to win this battle? You say you have, and have read, many such ideas. I confess that I have not seen a credible alternative so I invite you to enlighten me as to how fighter command was to avoid destruction and win the battle any other way.

Start reading What Ch had to say as that is pretty much what should have been done whatever else was done in the air. The fact that it was not done just shows classic British set piece thinking that cost so many civilian lives all over the world.

Besides which the tactics were never my argument, which was made clear in my last post, if not earlier.

My apologies then ....

Stellar

Alright, let's look at those words that have got us so het up...

Originally posted by ch1466
Facing a 109F, the P-40 has no vertical (up or down) edge and it weighs almost a third more (Kittyhawk, Warhawk is worse) while it's hp is roughly similar to the Hurricanes. What this means is that while the 109 may actually have a higher loading, it's slats and it's power make it vastly better in the BnZ or TnB fight which leaves the (Air Superiority dedicated) Kittyhawk little or no place to go. But at least it had the choice of starting height, skysearch attention and no bombs/tanks/cannon under the wing.

(emphasis mine)

Now then, someone explain to me why a dedicated air superiority machine is at a disadvantage. Surely the point of air superiority is that your machine is better than the other guy's...

How about explaining what BnZ or TnB are...

And this is one of the most "even-handed" passages there. Zeros are dismissed as "kite-fighters", despite the fact that USN ace Jimmy Thach had to invent the two-machine "Thach Weave" as the only sure way of killing a Mitsubishi if you were flying a Grumman, the Grumman is lauded as somehow excellent, despite its poor early-war combat record and replacement by the Chance-Vought Corsair, the Hurricane, which is here ascribed similar horsepower figures as the Curtiss, is completely "deconstructed" by ch, in favour of the P40.

Despite the fact that Hurricane had a better war record...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You really are as thick as two short planks, aren't you?
For those who came in late...

It's good to you have not changed and that what worked against you last time still will. Do me a favour and try assume the crowd is smart and that you can focus on me instead of them...

The reason I brought nationality into it was to show ch that he was using the wrong tactic to debate/denigrate/insult the wrong person.

Look i know you well enough to realise that your the one who insults first so don't bother with your " it's his fault card" tactic.

He said I was British.
I am not.

No but you talked as if your world depended on the facts as you have decided upon them thus his remark. I guess you still don't get it and still dont see why i said to keep nationality out of this!

You, however, are proving yourself a fool by hanging onto an error in a desparate attempt to avoid the inevitable.

It is foolish to argue with fools so i guess you are right about me in this case.

You did not understand the original post, you have not understood any post since.

I have allready decided to let everyone make their own judgements so feel free to try convince them if your aim is to be popular.

How the hell can ch be accurate if he calls the Battle of Britain mine when I am not from Britain?

Well then do not speak as if your life depended upon your view of what happened. His remarks were spot on considering your general tone.

When he is wrong...he is wrong. And you are only more so.
If we were discussing the Battle of Australia then it would be accurate to call it mine...

Well everyone is wrong now and again but from just reading a few of your posts i must tell you that your hardly one who should talk about this.... If you lived in Britain and talked about the German defense of the "fatherland" in the same way you did about Britain one could say much the same...

China? Talk about red herrings in a thread now dominated by them...
So, who is ignorant here?

Well you proved your ignorance on that topic and your doing so again here. Taking on CH with such casual uninformed arrogance is almost always going to end in tears with you being the last one to realise your own situation.

As you can't even get the small details right...well, I think I'm safe in my knowledge of World War 2.

The only thing your safe in is your own arrogance and your making it work overtime too.

Not sure whose signature it is, but..."A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something."
Put another way: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Wich is why you arguing with Ch is such a huge joke to me. You have NO idea just how far out of your league you are.

Then why did ch bring nationality into it by calling me British? And as for managing more than insults...never mind...your ignorant intransigence in the face of facts is beginning to make my head hurt...

He did not strictly bring nationality in; you did that all on your own. He simply noted the fact that your rabid defense of British policy would normally be conducted by someone who has everything involved and much to lose.

And having threads closed is never my goal, that prevents discussion, which prevents learning, although with some people I wonder what the point is...

You got the last one closed in not much time at all when you decided to start spamming it to death for lack of knowledge on topic.

Just keep going and this one will go the same way.

Stellar

[edit on 19-2-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by TheeStateMachine
CH1466 has been occused by some of being oblique and using terms difficult for the uninitiated to understand, and your critique with respect to his usage of this word adds to the fervor.

I, for one, applaud his ability to write with technically appropriate terms, acronyms, etc... and would encourage him, and others like him, to simply define some things which may not be clear to all.

As a prson who's read many many books about the military, I find most of his posts unclear and very difficult to read. I even suspect some of his acronyms are completely made up - talking in gobbly-gook does not make a good post.

Most of the people here who seem to be impressed by him are being dazzled with bull# and don't know any better

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How the hell can ch be accurate if he calls the Battle of Britain mine when I am not from Britain?

Well then do not speak as if your life depended upon your view of what happened. His remarks were spot on considering your general tone.

When he is wrong...he is wrong. And you are only more so.
If we were discussing the Battle of Australia then it would be accurate to call it mine...

Well everyone is wrong now and again but from just reading a few of your posts i must tell you that your hardly one who should talk about this.... If you lived in Britain and talked about the German defense of the "fatherland" in the same way you did about Britain one could say much the same...

Huh?

Or put another way...

What?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Huh?
Or put another way...
What?

With such limited comprehension it's no wonder you take issue with what CH has to say. All i can tell you is that your pointless interference and disagreement with me , and others no doubt, will elicit the same response in the future.

Goodluck.

Stellar

Lets haul this thread back on track - sort of.

I enjoyed reading the initial discussion on the fastest piston fighter (I'm a fan of the CA-15) but it veered on to a whole other topic.

Setting the 'pissing contest' of a few posters aside, I think the real question being raised is not so much which piston fighter was the fastest, but rather which was the better fighting machine.

What was the best fighter as a fighting machine?

The Hurricane was a reliable and stable gun platform. Easy to maintain and fly, it has survivability.

The Spitfire was a better handling aircraft that was able to evolve greatly over the period of the war. Narrow track and short range were problems, but flight characteristics were great.

Bf109/Me109 was almost maxed out in evolution early in war, but still capable. Killed many pilots in training.

The Fw190 was well designed for ease of use and maintenance (wide track, easy access panels etc) and evolved to the Ta152 (a potent machine that was hindered by production difficulties).

The Mustang - didn't really evolve much after the Merlin was added, but did they get it pretty much right first time?

Zero - a different philosophy for a lighter craft that was eventually outdated by heavier and better armoured later US carrier aircraft.

Grumman aircraft - the various 'cats that were a constant evolution and improvement.

Other questions?
Radial engined fighters better than liquid cooled in-lines for ground work?

Dogfighting acrobatics VS raw numbers (speed, rate of climb, max ceiling)

Tactics VS technology - did sensible use of a craft outweigh its performance deficiencies?

Intelligence and personality - did people really lose battles (BoB, Midway) or did the other side win them? Bad luck or poor intel and tactics?