Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain ." And the Soviets wouldn't let us commemorate them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And the Soviets wouldn't let us commemorate them. " Or honour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i find they only ever mention the russians germans and us most of the time its like the rest of europe wasnt involved.dont surprise me that 5 million poles died.after all they were one of the first to experiance bltzkreig.and dont forget the russians done pretty much yhe same to them as the germans did so they were getting it from 2 sides.pretty sure if we didnt have the channel seperating us from mainland europe we would of been wiped out" There was a thread not long ago where several people were absolutely insistent that Britain won the Battle of Britain alone. Allied pilots and troops and supplies from all over the Empire were dismissed as a sideshow. This gives us the arrogant belief as a nation that we can "go-it-alone" and succeed against the odds. We ne er have. We have historically been clever or lucky enough to do no such thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i find they only ever mention the russians germans and us most of the time its like the rest of europe wasnt involved.dont surprise me that 5 million poles died.after all they were one of the first to experiance bltzkreig.and dont forget the russians done pretty much yhe same to them as the germans did so they were getting it from 2 sides.pretty sure if we didnt have the channel seperating us from mainland europe we would of been wiped out There was a thread not long ago where several people were absolutely insistent that Britain won the Battle of Britain alone. Allied pilots and troops and supplies from all over the Empire were dismissed as a sideshow. This gives us the arrogant belief as a nation that we can "go-it-alone" and succeed against the odds. We ne er have. We have historically been clever or lucky enough to do no such thing." I believe that the point that was being made, was that at the beginning of the war, Britain stood alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Of course you'll twist it into your usual anti UK narrative. But we expect that from you. Bob will be along in a mo...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe that the point that was being made, was that at the beginning of the war, Britain stood alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Of course you'll twist it into your usual anti UK narrative. But we expect that from you. Bob will be along in a mo... "We didn't stand alone tho. Within weeks of war being declared there were Australians, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders, Rhodesians and South Africans as well as Free Poles swelling the ranks of the RAF. Then when Norway and France were invaded those numbers were further reinforced by servicemen from those countries. To be honest I do not know how many pilots there were from other Empire countries or from Ireland and the USA, but I do know that the only ones who were not made active were those who did not fluent English speakers. When we 'stood alone' the 'we' was The British Empire not the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i find they only ever mention the russians germans and us most of the time its like the rest of europe wasnt involved.dont surprise me that 5 million poles died.after all they were one of the first to experiance bltzkreig.and dont forget the russians done pretty much yhe same to them as the germans did so they were getting it from 2 sides.pretty sure if we didnt have the channel seperating us from mainland europe we would of been wiped out There was a thread not long ago where several people were absolutely insistent that Britain won the Battle of Britain alone. Allied pilots and troops and supplies from all over the Empire were dismissed as a sideshow. This gives us the arrogant belief as a nation that we can "go-it-alone" and succeed against the odds. We ne er have. We have historically been clever or lucky enough to do no such thing." Iv never read one post were someone said we won it alone don’t know why you make this shite up ffs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe that the point that was being made, was that at the beginning of the war, Britain stood alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Of course you'll twist it into your usual anti UK narrative. But we expect that from you. Bob will be along in a mo...
We didn't stand alone tho. Within weeks of war being declared there were Australians, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders, Rhodesians and South Africans as well as Free Poles swelling the ranks of the RAF. Then when Norway and France were invaded those numbers were further reinforced by servicemen from those countries. To be honest I do not know how many pilots there were from other Empire countries or from Ireland and the USA, but I do know that the only ones who were not made active were those who did not fluent English speakers.
When we 'stood alone' the 'we' was The British Empire not the UK."i didnt say we stood alone.what you think germany would of got to france and stopped.if it wasnt for the channel we would of been wiped out in months. cant see how that comes across as we stood alone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i find they only ever mention the russians germans and us most of the time its like the rest of europe wasnt involved.dont surprise me that 5 million poles died.after all they were one of the first to experiance bltzkreig.and dont forget the russians done pretty much yhe same to them as the germans did so they were getting it from 2 sides.pretty sure if we didnt have the channel seperating us from mainland europe we would of been wiped out There was a thread not long ago where several people were absolutely insistent that Britain won the Battle of Britain alone. Allied pilots and troops and supplies from all over the Empire were dismissed as a sideshow. This gives us the arrogant belief as a nation that we can "go-it-alone" and succeed against the odds. We ne er have. We have historically been clever or lucky enough to do no such thing. I believe that the point that was being made, was that at the beginning of the war, Britain stood alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Of course you'll twist it into your usual anti UK narrative. But we expect that from you. Bob will be along in a mo... "Too true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper." Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it because most of them were Jewish and counted as part of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Germans and the majority of the rest were Polish military, politicians, professionals and civic leaders murdered by the Soviets during the annexation of Poland in 44?" I am pretty sure you right on this Will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain ." Yes. I will have a look, what was the highest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i didnt say we stood alone.what you think germany would of got to france and stopped.if it wasnt for the channel we would of been wiped out in months. cant see how that comes across as we stood alone?" Firstly, if you took the time to read my post properly you would have realised I was not replying to you but to Cross-eyed Mary (love the Tull reference, did you get to the 50th anniversary tour? I saw Ian and the band in Manchester). Secondly, I have never suggested that the channel did not play a major role in stopping the German advance, but it is well known in military circles that advances run out of momentum after around 250 miles (400 km) which as it happens is around where the first inland stop line on the Royal Military Canal and the then flooded Romney marshes are. Which I believe would have worked and funneled any army into a well prepared killing ground between Folkstone and the Isle of Sheppey. But such speculation is a purely academic exercise because of the channel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". " Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it because most of them were Jewish and counted as part of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Germans and the majority of the rest were Polish military, politicians, professionals and civic leaders murdered by the Soviets during the annexation of Poland in 44?" It could be that, 6 million of these were polish citizens, half of these were non jews. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was watching what happened after the war yesterday and yet again another program dont mention them, do you know why?" After the war, those Eastern European personnel who had served with western forces and returned home were imprisoned as potential spies. Many died in custody. Their own countries denied them too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain .Yes. I will have a look, what was the highest?" It's actually 303 Squadron. Despite being a Polish squadron, it's top ace was actually a "guest" Czech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i find they only ever mention the russians germans and us most of the time its like the rest of europe wasnt involved.dont surprise me that 5 million poles died.after all they were one of the first to experiance bltzkreig.and dont forget the russians done pretty much yhe same to them as the germans did so they were getting it from 2 sides.pretty sure if we didnt have the channel seperating us from mainland europe we would of been wiped out There was a thread not long ago where several people were absolutely insistent that Britain won the Battle of Britain alone. Allied pilots and troops and supplies from all over the Empire were dismissed as a sideshow. This gives us the arrogant belief as a nation that we can "go-it-alone" and succeed against the odds. We ne er have. We have historically been clever or lucky enough to do no such thing. I believe that the point that was being made, was that at the beginning of the war, Britain stood alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Of course you'll twist it into your usual anti UK narrative. But we expect that from you. Bob will be along in a mo... "... and there's the usual nonsense. Is this some sort of grammatical victory you're after? Britain was the only state left in Europe fighting Germany. Britain was not the only unoccupied country fighting Germany. Are either of those comments untrue? If they are both true then Britain dis not stand alone as a nation state against Nazi controlled Europe. Also, you have absolutely no right to tell me that my narrative is in any way anti-UK. I am just not foolish enough to believe that all that Britain has done or has benefitted from has been achieved alone or without harm to others, or out of pure benevolence. None of that negates the brave and positive acts carried out by British individuals or as the country as a whole. You learn more from mistakes and failure than success. Of course, if you cannot acknowledge mistakes or failure you learn nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true "No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic. I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’ Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason "Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain ." And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.......... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding "The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain. Quite. You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding
The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain.
Quite.
You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box "There's no secret about it, and the "truth" is usually open to interpretation. I'll tell you what, you tell me who Dowding made that quote to, and what the occasion was and I'll happily discuss it with you. I'll give you a couple of minutes, but not enough time for you to just google it and regurgitate someone else's facts. It's 20.10 now - go! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding
The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain.
Quite.
You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box
There's no secret about it, and the "truth" is usually open to interpretation. I'll tell you what, you tell me who Dowding made that quote to, and what the occasion was and I'll happily discuss it with you. I'll give you a couple of minutes, but not enough time for you to just google it and regurgitate someone else's facts. It's 20.10 now - go!"I ticked the right box it seems. What a little control freak  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Britain was not the only unoccupied country fighting Germany. Are either of those comments untrue? I" Do the Channel Islands and the quislings there count as British? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding
The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain.
Quite.
You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box
There's no secret about it, and the "truth" is usually open to interpretation. I'll tell you what, you tell me who Dowding made that quote to, and what the occasion was and I'll happily discuss it with you. I'll give you a couple of minutes, but not enough time for you to just google it and regurgitate someone else's facts. It's 20.10 now - go!
I ticked the right box it seems.
What a little control freak "If you don't know the answer, it's ok to just say so rather than hiding behind rudeness. If you really want to know the facts here, read the material from Dowding and Sholto Douglas - even Arthur Harris. Just don't front that you have anything other than lightweight knowledge based on a television programme. All 4 of my grandparents were in one branch of the RAF or the other, so it's an interest of mine. What did your grandparents do during the war, out of interest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding
The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain.
Quite.
You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box
There's no secret about it, and the "truth" is usually open to interpretation. I'll tell you what, you tell me who Dowding made that quote to, and what the occasion was and I'll happily discuss it with you. I'll give you a couple of minutes, but not enough time for you to just google it and regurgitate someone else's facts. It's 20.10 now - go!
I ticked the right box it seems.
What a little control freak
If you don't know the answer, it's ok to just say so rather than hiding behind rudeness. If you really want to know the facts here, read the material from Dowding and Sholto Douglas - even Arthur Harris. Just don't front that you have anything other than lightweight knowledge based on a television programme. All 4 of my grandparents were in one branch of the RAF or the other, so it's an interest of mine. What did your grandparents do during the war, out of interest?"Wow. What a question. You think that somehow the service and bravery of your grandparents has somehow passed on to you? That asking me or anybody else a question like that carries some relevance? Again, here you are claiming a Typing away sating that the Eastern European pilots were liabilities due to a unique and mysterious insight, this time due to your bloodline. Wow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.........." True, Sad truth  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.......... True, Sad truth "We didn't want to upset Stalin! Then we compounded it by sending the Cossacks back to Russia to be brutally murdered by our "friend and allie" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People either seem to forget, or are ignorant of the fact that WW2 was a world war between the Axis powers and the Allies. Britain entered the war because of a succession of broken non-aggression pacts and trade treaties. No other nation "fought for Britain", they fought because they had similar treaties with Britain, and were legally obliged to come to our aid, as we were legally obliged to come to the aid of Eastern European countries. The Polish who came here did so because they were escaping their country. They didn't fight for Britain, they fought for Poland using British equipment and supplies. They refused to go to any other theatre of war. Those that went into the RAF were so undisciplined and were so careless of their equipment that Dowding insisted they had their own squadron. He notes in his memoirs that the equipment they destroyed through poor use would have been better used and would have increased the kill-rates of other squadrons to a greater extent than the Poles. In short, no combatants "died for Britain" during WW2 apart from British servicemen. All other nations on our side fought and died for the cause of the Allies and bits of paper. Actually none of the dominion territories (i.e. The "white" countries) had no treaties in place with the UK. Their foreign policy was independent. They chose to/felt that they should, come to our aid. The rest of the Empire had no such choice. Were Canada or Australia or India or any African country directly threatened by Germany any more than the USA was? Way to go dismissing the contribution of the "foreigners" as a handicap. Incredible arrogance and belief that Britain is in some way "exceptional". Your knowledge of history is a little scant. Here's a tip - if your research material stars John Wayne, it's probably not true
No, it really isn't. Yours just appears to be rather myopic.
I guess Air Marshall Dowding was just being politically correct when he said: ‘Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the Battle would have been the same.’
Fake news delivered as a line by John Wayne for some inexplicable reason
Well googled However, context seems to have evaded your understanding
The context of them being good pilots who made a huge contribution to winning the Battle of Britain.
Quite.
You can hint at your secret knowledge and the "truth" that you appear to know and nobody else does, but unless you are actually going to come up with something more substantial I'll file it under the "old man trying to look important and knowledgable" box
There's no secret about it, and the "truth" is usually open to interpretation. I'll tell you what, you tell me who Dowding made that quote to, and what the occasion was and I'll happily discuss it with you. I'll give you a couple of minutes, but not enough time for you to just google it and regurgitate someone else's facts. It's 20.10 now - go!
I ticked the right box it seems.
What a little control freak
If you don't know the answer, it's ok to just say so rather than hiding behind rudeness. If you really want to know the facts here, read the material from Dowding and Sholto Douglas - even Arthur Harris. Just don't front that you have anything other than lightweight knowledge based on a television programme. All 4 of my grandparents were in one branch of the RAF or the other, so it's an interest of mine. What did your grandparents do during the war, out of interest?
Wow. What a question. You think that somehow the service and bravery of your grandparents has somehow passed on to you?
That asking me or anybody else a question like that carries some relevance?
Again, here you are claiming a
Typing away sating that the Eastern European pilots were liabilities due to a unique and mysterious insight, this time due to your bloodline.
Wow. "Your answer is as I expected. As my old maths master used to say - no matter how many times you multiply zero by zero, you'll always get a zero. Back to the books for you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your answer is as I expected. As my old maths master used to say - no matter how many times you multiply zero by zero, you'll always get a zero. Back to the books for you "As you are clearly an expert, can you tell me which hurricane ace was credited with saying that when attacking bomber streams they used to aim their plane at a bomber open the throttle close their eyes, press the firing button and prey they were still alive 5 seconds later, was it Bob Doe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your answer is as I expected. As my old maths master used to say - no matter how many times you multiply zero by zero, you'll always get a zero. Back to the books for you
As you are clearly an expert, can you tell me which hurricane ace was credited with saying that when attacking bomber streams they used to aim their plane at a bomber open the throttle close their eyes, press the firing button and prey they were still alive 5 seconds later, was it Bob Doe?"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try "Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure. However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least." There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other problem with Polish combatants was one of security. At the start of the the war the military security division only had about 30 full-time officers. Poland was a defeated nation and all service records had been lost, or destroyed by the Germans. Spying and sabotage was a serious concern - Polish combatants' histories and service records were uncheckable which made each individual a risk. Documents including financial reports finally released by MI5 in 1995 showed that so much time and money was spent investigating the Polish volunteers, other major security risks may have slipped through the net. If you have no other background learning than films, then at least the film "Battle of Britain" highlights 2 of my points. firstly, the problems with communication, language and discipline. In the film, a Polish flyer is given an order which he disagrees with and says the words "repeat pliz, repeat pliz" whilst ignoring his orders. In another scene a pilot bails out and is "captured" by a farm worker who doesn't believe that his accent is not a German one "Polish, my arse" is the line. At a time of fear and high-anxiety, the Polish pilot could have been killed due to a misunderstanding. The film treats these incidents in a light-hearted way, but these issues were a genuine problem at the time. Wars are not fought by just brave men and women with guns, they're also fought by accountants, merchants, strategists and ordinary people." Both incidents above actually happened and the film is very true to actual events (if you take out the romantically backstory between Michael Redgrave and Susannah York)! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other problem with Polish combatants was one of security. At the start of the the war the military security division only had about 30 full-time officers. Poland was a defeated nation and all service records had been lost, or destroyed by the Germans. Spying and sabotage was a serious concern - Polish combatants' histories and service records were uncheckable which made each individual a risk. Documents including financial reports finally released by MI5 in 1995 showed that so much time and money was spent investigating the Polish volunteers, other major security risks may have slipped through the net. If you have no other background learning than films, then at least the film "Battle of Britain" highlights 2 of my points. firstly, the problems with communication, language and discipline. In the film, a Polish flyer is given an order which he disagrees with and says the words "repeat pliz, repeat pliz" whilst ignoring his orders. In another scene a pilot bails out and is "captured" by a farm worker who doesn't believe that his accent is not a German one "Polish, my arse" is the line. At a time of fear and high-anxiety, the Polish pilot could have been killed due to a misunderstanding. The film treats these incidents in a light-hearted way, but these issues were a genuine problem at the time. Wars are not fought by just brave men and women with guns, they're also fought by accountants, merchants, strategists and ordinary people. Both incidents above actually happened and the film is very true to actual events (if you take out the romantically backstory between Michael Redgrave and Susannah York)!" Yes! It's based on actual events, but like most films, it tends to focus on the more glamorous side of the story. It was made in 1969 during the height of the cold war and the focus for western countries was on diplomacy and reunification - appeasement, as it were. And it was Christopher Plummer married to Susannah York in the film for the romantic back-story | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Above should say Christopher Plummer, not Michael Redgrave!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if we didnt have a bit of water between us we wpuld of been wiped out or all speaking german today" That is right, it was only the sea between france that saved britain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.........." That is right, it is like the 5 million polish was the forgotten ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least.
There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box."The condescension continues, implying that all anybody else knows about WWII is from film. You know better due to the widely available information that only you know because your grandparents were all in the RAF giving you a genetic key to the truth. The point, which you made very clearly, was that you thought that the Eastern European pilots were a liability. This "knowledge" comes from the unverified negative opinions of Air Marshall Dowding and other senior officers which contradict their quoted public statements which you cast doubt on without evidence. Now some new accounting "facts". How nice. Being so knowledgable you will know all of this too: 303 Squadron "only" managed to shoot down 126 enemy aircraft. "just"twice as many as the next most effective squadron. Hardly worth having them around. After all, that was "only" three times the average squadron kill rate. Only 40% of all RAF pilots recorded a kill and only 15% recorded more than one. One of the main reasons for this was that they didn't survive for very long. 4 weeks on average for a Spitfire pilot. The problem wasn't losing aircraft. The problem was losing pilots. Guess what, the Eastern European pilots were very good at staying alive because they had hundreds of hours more flying experience than anyone else. 303 Squadron had the highest kill to loss ratio of any squadron. They lost fewer pilots than anyone else per enemy aircraft shot down. This may have given them some insight into how to fly effectively as they didn't use the RAF close formation as they wanted to look for enemy aircraft, not at each other to avoid collision. As you also know, shooting in a plane is incredibly inaccurate so they flew in very close before opening fire. The .303 calibre round was also pretty hopeless and needed to be fired at close range to be truly effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with less than a 40% chance of getting even one kill due to their lack of experience would not have been any sort of comparison even if it were possible to find that many competent men to train. The Battle of Britain was also won "despite" the handicap of their contribution. You enjoy being an accountant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least.
There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box.
The condescension continues, implying that all anybody else knows about WWII is from film.
You know better due to the widely available information that only you know because your grandparents were all in the RAF giving you a genetic key to the truth.
The point, which you made very clearly, was that you thought that the Eastern European pilots were a liability. This "knowledge" comes from the unverified negative opinions of Air Marshall Dowding and other senior officers which contradict their quoted public statements which you cast doubt on without evidence.
Now some new accounting "facts". How nice. Being so knowledgable you will know all of this too:
303 Squadron "only" managed to shoot down 126 enemy aircraft. "just"twice as many as the next most effective squadron. Hardly worth having them around. After all, that was "only" three times the average squadron kill rate.
Only 40% of all RAF pilots recorded a kill and only 15% recorded more than one.
One of the main reasons for this was that they didn't survive for very long. 4 weeks on average for a Spitfire pilot.
The problem wasn't losing aircraft. The problem was losing pilots.
Guess what, the Eastern European pilots were very good at staying alive because they had hundreds of hours more flying experience than anyone else. 303 Squadron had the highest kill to loss ratio of any squadron. They lost fewer pilots than anyone else per enemy aircraft shot down.
This may have given them some insight into how to fly effectively as they didn't use the RAF close formation as they wanted to look for enemy aircraft, not at each other to avoid collision.
As you also know, shooting in a plane is incredibly inaccurate so they flew in very close before opening fire. The .303 calibre round was also pretty hopeless and needed to be fired at close range to be truly effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a
They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with less than a 40% chance of getting even one kill due to their lack of experience would not have been any sort of comparison even if it were possible to find that many competent men to train.
The Battle of Britain was also won "despite" the handicap of their contribution.
You enjoy being an accountant."Well, what a waste of effort that was on your part. What a load of plagiarised twaddle. Look sonny boy, if you're only going to leach off the hard work of others don't bother trying to sell it like it's your own. You enjoy your life of mediocrity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least.
There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box.
The condescension continues, implying that all anybody else knows about WWII is from film.
You know better due to the widely available information that only you know because your grandparents were all in the RAF giving you a genetic key to the truth.
The point, which you made very clearly, was that you thought that the Eastern European pilots were a liability. This "knowledge" comes from the unverified negative opinions of Air Marshall Dowding and other senior officers which contradict their quoted public statements which you cast doubt on without evidence.
Now some new accounting "facts". How nice. Being so knowledgable you will know all of this too:
303 Squadron "only" managed to shoot down 126 enemy aircraft. "just"twice as many as the next most effective squadron. Hardly worth having them around. After all, that was "only" three times the average squadron kill rate.
Only 40% of all RAF pilots recorded a kill and only 15% recorded more than one.
One of the main reasons for this was that they didn't survive for very long. 4 weeks on average for a Spitfire pilot.
The problem wasn't losing aircraft. The problem was losing pilots.
Guess what, the Eastern European pilots were very good at staying alive because they had hundreds of hours more flying experience than anyone else. 303 Squadron had the highest kill to loss ratio of any squadron. They lost fewer pilots than anyone else per enemy aircraft shot down.
This may have given them some insight into how to fly effectively as they didn't use the RAF close formation as they wanted to look for enemy aircraft, not at each other to avoid collision.
As you also know, shooting in a plane is incredibly inaccurate so they flew in very close before opening fire. The .303 calibre round was also pretty hopeless and needed to be fired at close range to be truly effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a
They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with less than a 40% chance of getting even one kill due to their lack of experience would not have been any sort of comparison even if it were possible to find that many competent men to train.
The Battle of Britain was also won "despite" the handicap of their contribution.
You enjoy being an accountant.
Well, what a waste of effort that was on your part. What a load of plagiarised twaddle. Look sonny boy, if you're only going to leach off the hard work of others don't bother trying to sell it like it's your own. You enjoy your life of mediocrity "And I know you plagiarised it because of this mistake in your post- "effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with" All you did was add a few words to someone else's work and you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly
I believe the term is "busted"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least.
There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box.
The condescension continues, implying that all anybody else knows about WWII is from film.
You know better due to the widely available information that only you know because your grandparents were all in the RAF giving you a genetic key to the truth.
The point, which you made very clearly, was that you thought that the Eastern European pilots were a liability. This "knowledge" comes from the unverified negative opinions of Air Marshall Dowding and other senior officers which contradict their quoted public statements which you cast doubt on without evidence.
Now some new accounting "facts". How nice. Being so knowledgable you will know all of this too:
303 Squadron "only" managed to shoot down 126 enemy aircraft. "just"twice as many as the next most effective squadron. Hardly worth having them around. After all, that was "only" three times the average squadron kill rate.
Only 40% of all RAF pilots recorded a kill and only 15% recorded more than one.
One of the main reasons for this was that they didn't survive for very long. 4 weeks on average for a Spitfire pilot.
The problem wasn't losing aircraft. The problem was losing pilots.
Guess what, the Eastern European pilots were very good at staying alive because they had hundreds of hours more flying experience than anyone else. 303 Squadron had the highest kill to loss ratio of any squadron. They lost fewer pilots than anyone else per enemy aircraft shot down.
This may have given them some insight into how to fly effectively as they didn't use the RAF close formation as they wanted to look for enemy aircraft, not at each other to avoid collision.
As you also know, shooting in a plane is incredibly inaccurate so they flew in very close before opening fire. The .303 calibre round was also pretty hopeless and needed to be fired at close range to be truly effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a
They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with less than a 40% chance of getting even one kill due to their lack of experience would not have been any sort of comparison even if it were possible to find that many competent men to train.
The Battle of Britain was also won "despite" the handicap of their contribution.
You enjoy being an accountant.
Well, what a waste of effort that was on your part. What a load of plagiarised twaddle. Look sonny boy, if you're only going to leach off the hard work of others don't bother trying to sell it like it's your own. You enjoy your life of mediocrity
And I know you plagiarised it because of this mistake in your post-
"effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a
They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with"
All you did was add a few words to someone else's work and you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly
I believe the term is "busted" "
You are hilarious.
Now you are outraged about my typos and that I didn't just make the information up making it plagarised in your head.
"...4 weeks each with far less than a 40%chance of making even one kill"
Then off you skip to find the quote
Yet not a single point answered by you. Just a list of prejudices and flawed accountants logic.
What information have you offered other than sneering and pomposity? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What a pointless and insignificant question - you can look it up for yourself. Looking at some of your other posts, I know you'll just sneeringly accuse me of googling the answer but nice try
Funnily enough I was asking a serious question, I know very little about RAF history, my only knowledge being in the use of air-power as a 'third flank', and my question being prompted by this thread reminding me of listening to an interview with a Battle of Briton hurricane ace describing what he actually did when attacking the bomber streams. I think the I heard the interview round the 50th anniversary of the BoB but can't be sure.
However it is significant that you would accuse me of doing to you what you have been doing to others in this thread. I believe it is called projection. By the way it is not a good look and undermines all the credibility you had with me at least.
There is a great deal of written material available online and at the Imperial War museum. Sadly, not all of it was put on film by Hollywood so the thickies go no further than their TV screens for knowledge. My point about Polish flyers was not that they weren't brave or anything like that - they were courageous and fearless fighters who contributed a lot to the war effort. My point is that wars are fought on a budget. The UK, as an island nation, had very limited financial and material resources and the war made starvation through attrition a very real fear. Treasury financial reports released after the war show that Polish flyers cost 4 times more than British flyers to train from start to flying. This was due to many factors - language difficulties, converting metric to imperial, formation flying (Big wings) etc. The "success" of the RAF was measured in enemy planes destroyed. Did any Polish only squadron down 4 times more enemy planes than any British only squadron? No, they didn't. The Polish were very early into the war, and their training was a huge expense. Would 4 times the amount of British flyers give the same "kill-rate" or higher do you think? That's the question for debate, but proper debate would require actual reading rather than just watching the idiot-box.
The condescension continues, implying that all anybody else knows about WWII is from film.
You know better due to the widely available information that only you know because your grandparents were all in the RAF giving you a genetic key to the truth.
The point, which you made very clearly, was that you thought that the Eastern European pilots were a liability. This "knowledge" comes from the unverified negative opinions of Air Marshall Dowding and other senior officers which contradict their quoted public statements which you cast doubt on without evidence.
Now some new accounting "facts". How nice. Being so knowledgable you will know all of this too:
303 Squadron "only" managed to shoot down 126 enemy aircraft. "just"twice as many as the next most effective squadron. Hardly worth having them around. After all, that was "only" three times the average squadron kill rate.
Only 40% of all RAF pilots recorded a kill and only 15% recorded more than one.
One of the main reasons for this was that they didn't survive for very long. 4 weeks on average for a Spitfire pilot.
The problem wasn't losing aircraft. The problem was losing pilots.
Guess what, the Eastern European pilots were very good at staying alive because they had hundreds of hours more flying experience than anyone else. 303 Squadron had the highest kill to loss ratio of any squadron. They lost fewer pilots than anyone else per enemy aircraft shot down.
This may have given them some insight into how to fly effectively as they didn't use the RAF close formation as they wanted to look for enemy aircraft, not at each other to avoid collision.
As you also know, shooting in a plane is incredibly inaccurate so they flew in very close before opening fire. The .303 calibre round was also pretty hopeless and needed to be fired at close range to be truly effective. This made them far more lethal but funnily enough meant that their aircraft a
They were more effective because they were more experienced. Putting up four times as many new British pilots for 4 weeks each with less than a 40% chance of getting even one kill due to their lack of experience would not have been any sort of comparison even if it were possible to find that many competent men to train.
The Battle of Britain was also won "despite" the handicap of their contribution.
You enjoy being an accountant.
Well, what a waste of effort that was on your part. What a load of plagiarised twaddle. Look sonny boy, if you're only going to leach off the hard work of others don't bother trying to sell it like it's your own. You enjoy your life of mediocrity "Is your ego really so fragile that you need to make feeble attempts at insulting people you know nothing about? Enjoy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.......... True, Sad truth
We didn't want to upset Stalin! Then we compounded it by sending the Cossacks back to Russia to be brutally murdered by our "friend and allie""Did it happen with the Czech personnel- were they told to get back ‘home’? I’ve been privileged to go to Northolt (was in the forces) with the PAF memorial service and meet some fine gents that fought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"watch the film Hurricane on netflix tells you a lot about 33 squadron highest kill ratio in the battle of britain . And Poland was the only country not being represented on the parade in London after the war ended. Mexico was.........." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"144 Polish pilots took part in the battle, Germans lost 1733 aircrafts, additional 650 were damaged - that made 52% of the total Luftwaffe Planes. 2500 died or taken to nazi camps, 1000 injured. British have lost 915 planes and 450 were damaged. 544 pilots died and 500 injured - Polish would fight for their country in any possible way and one of them was by joining the British RAF to fight against Nazis. The journey to Britain was a hell for them but determination bigger ... BUT let’s go back in time just a little bit - it wasn’t the first time Polish have helped Britain ... if it wasn’t for Polish and the King John III Sobieski in 1683 leading Polish army to win the Battle of Vienna you would all be reading Quran today. : ) " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
