Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was brave young men who won the battle. Spitfires and Hurricanes were merely their tools.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think all the facts are out there and maybe it is just jumping on the Spitfire Bandstand, you have to put pennies in your pocket I guess.
I think Dilip has his own views on lots of things BoB.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was brave young men who won the battle. Spitfires and Hurricanes were merely their tools.
And so the debate about their "tools" continues after more than 70 years.........:rolleyes:
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was brave young men who won the battle. Spitfires and Hurricanes were merely their tools.
Very true.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think both viewpoints are valid. But, the Spitfire was more than just a tool, it was a symbol. The effect that the Spitfire had on morale in the UK during the Battle should not be discounted.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 14:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't suppose the fact that the author will sell way more books when the word Spitfire is in the title has anything to do with it?
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
I think Dilip has his own views on lots of things BoB.
I imagine that might well be the most telling contribution to this thread.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think both viewpoints are valid. But, the Spitfire was more than just a tool, it was a symbol. The effect that the Spitfire had on morale in the UK during the Battle should not be discounted.
That's an interesting point. Was the effect so evident at the time or has it grown and the mythology attached to it grown in the war years following the BoB and subsequently of course post war?
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is my personal opinion (for what that's worth) that both had their strengths and weaknesses but thank heaven we had them both.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't comment on a book I haven't read. What I would say is this;- Every book really worth reading on this subject, and much else aviation-wise of that period, has been written, and written by people who were actually there and involved, and, for the most part are now deceased. They wrote, very often, when the events they describe were still quite fresh in their minds. Whatever flaws these books may contain, original records and, most especially, these autobiographies are our finest sources.
'Spitfires' and the 'BoB' et al, have become a sort of cottage industry for people who actually were not only not there, not involved and were and are not even directly involved in real aviation. We have a superfluity of desktop experts, often endowed with 'handles' suggesting that they won the 'BoB' singlehandedly. Whilst those involved at the time were respectful of the past, they were not, for the most part, overly sentimental about it either. One may juxtapose this with the ghastly mawkishness that has crept-in now that the last surviving participants are fading from the scene.
There is now a vast back-catalogue of latter-day books on all the above, that, once read, scarcely need revisiting. On the other hand, those autobiographies still have the power to awaken the past - and speak with ultimate authority. One may return to them time and again to re-absorb 'how it was'. There is always space on my shelves for another aviation autobiography. The rest - they mostly reside in dusty boxes in my loft. Probably the best place for most of them too...
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How true. We all have our favourites and after reading and re-reading many I still come back to Geoffrey Wellum's "First Light".
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Referring to the title of this thread, I'll see your Dilip and raise you a Dr North, he of the shambolic fail at viral marketing on this very forum.
Moggy
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'How the SPITFIRE won the Battle of Britain'. "Finally lays to rest the myth that the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain rather than the numerically inferior,yet more glamorous Spitfire'
If Dilip has his way new students of the BoB will be brainwashed into thinking the RAF only possessed RJ's finest during the battle.
I'm sticking with Stephen Bungay and Dr Alfred Price.
As for the Hurri winning the Battle, I always assumed the Spit and Hurri complemented each other ?
I was never under the impression that either won it themselves.
Excuse me asking, but have you (and the other critics here) actually read the book, which has, incidentally, been around since 2010?
For years, all we've heard is how the Hurricane destroyed more of the enemy than all of the other defenders put together, and the author, by pulling together all of the available figures, shows that it wasn't so. He also does not denigrate the Hurricane, in fact, in his "Conclusion," he states, "So, whilst the claim that the Hurricane executed greater damage upon the enemy whilst the Spitfire walked away with the glory is largely a myth, the fact is that in 1940 the Hurricane was essential in the defence of this country."
Among a plethora of figures, he shows that 19 Spitfire Squadrons destroyed around 530 aircraft (at an average 28 per Squadron,) while 30 Hurricane Squadrons destroyed 656 (at 22.5 per Squadron.) So the Hurricane destroyed more in total, but fewer per Squadron.
If nothing else, it shows that the old saying that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" still holds good.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 17:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's an interesting point. Was the effect so evident at the time or has it grown and the mythology attached to it grown in the war years following the BoB and subsequently of course post war?
I would hazard a guess that it was prevalent at the time, witness the number of Spitfire funds, were there any Hurricane funds?
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 17:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Among a plethora of figures, he shows that 19 Spitfire Squadrons destroyed around 530 aircraft (at an average 28 per Squadron,) while Hurricane Squadrons destroyed 656 (at 22.5 per Squadron.) So the Hurricane destroyed more in total, but fewer per Squadron.
If nothing else, it shows that the old saying that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" still holds good".
The facts here are undeniable, and yet there are still those (in perhaps a form of inverse snobbery) that want to show the Hurricane was better at the job; debate after debate has raged trying to show that the Hurricane was better to land a more stable gun platform, less prone to overheating on the ground, easier to repair battle damage, and on an on, an yet the official figures are beyond dispute.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spitfire snobbery........SIMPLES :highly_amused:
Posts: 3,652
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Wouldn't it be more true to say the truth is the pilots who managed to fly both types in the BoB if their are any ? would be the best judges of which was the better aircraft ? despite what story's are around having said that would it really depend on the pilots skill in flying both types ?
Geoff.
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Spit I and II took twenty six minutes to turn-around compared to under nine minutes for a Hurricane. That is; re-fuel, top up oil, re-arm, replenish oxygen
So what was the main reason for the vast difference in turnaround times.
For instance the cowls need to be removeto perform a task or the gun panels were much more fiddly to remove.
Anyone know why?
By: - 23rd September 2013 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Excuse me asking, but have you (and the other critics here) actually read the book, which has, incidentally, been around since 2010?
For years, all we've heard is how the Hurricane destroyed more of the enemy than all of the other defenders put together, and the author, by pulling together all of the available figures, shows that it wasn't so. He also does not denigrate the Hurricane, in fact, in his "Conclusion," he states, "So, whilst the claim that the Hurricane executed greater damage upon the enemy whilst the Spitfire walked away with the glory is largely a myth, the fact is that in 1940 the Hurricane was essential in the defence of this country."
Among a plethora of figures, he shows that 19 Spitfire Squadrons destroyed around 530 aircraft (at an average 28 per Squadron,) while Hurricane Squadrons destroyed 656 (at 22.5 per Squadron.) So the Hurricane destroyed more in total, but fewer per Squadron.
If nothing else, it shows that the old saying that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" still holds good.
Fair point.
I'd be interested to pick up a copy one day out of curiosity proving that what the author may lack in memorable writing style he more than makes up for with his marketing skills.
Posts: 814
By: The Bump - 23rd September 2013 at 13:49
'How the SPITFIRE won the Battle of Britain'. "Finally lays to rest the myth that the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain rather than the numerically inferior,yet more glamorous Spitfire'
Now I have nothing against Dilip, in fact it was through reading his book on Johnnie Johnson that I discovered the ad on the above book.
I love a good book on the Spitfire and the Battle of a Britain but I fear it would be difficult to read this book with the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped in the background............particularly after perusing the list of the authors other releases.
If Dilip has his way new students of the BoB will be brainwashed into thinking the RAF only possessed RJ's finest during the battle.
I'm sticking with Stephen Bungay and Dr Alfred Price.
As for the Hurri winning the Battle, I always assumed the Spit and Hurri complemented each other ?
I was never under the impression that either won it themselves.