in the end, doesn't he contradict himself by giving credit to the same pilots he is criticising? Maybe I read it wrong. Something must have been done correctly by the 'inexperienced' pilot unless the Germans shot themselves down.
Seems like another work jumping on the band wagen which started last year or so with the arguement that the Royal Navy won the battle. However, the reality is the RAF wins. Yes some pilots may not have been as good as previously assumed. What do we expect when the losses from France had not been replaced with fully trained pilots. Yes the strategic situation meant that invasion was unlikely and if it had happened would not have succeeded becuase a combination of the Navy and Army but it did not reach this situation becuase the RAF forces the Germans to recinsider their plans. This is unfortuantly revisionism at its worth, for its own sake. Ross
Yes, the British had a lot of poorly trained pilots. In a lot of cases, when a pilot showed an ability to survive and not let the German pilots survive, they became trainers. Just as 1940 radar would be found to be lacking compared to 1945 radar, the 1940 pilots were lacking due to the fact that they were green.
Someone trying to make a name for himself? The Luftwaffe lost the BoB, and that is the end of it. If only 1 in 7 hit what he was shooting at that makes for less than 100 pilots shooting down all those German pilots. Now that is impressive. In the tactical training centre of the infantry the average hit percentage for infantry firing at infantry at roughley 100yards in combat situations during week one is 4%. After a grueling back breaking 2 weeks of training we bump it up to 20%. The special forces are over 50%. that is what realistic training does for you. And by realistic I mean as close to the real thing as possible. I allow myself to compare the fighter jocks to our infantry lads. The first time around the adrenaline blocks all rational thinking. Shooting at LOOOONG distances rather than manouvere for a better firing position and angle. Coupling the infantry into pairs etc. I'd like to compare to a the interaction between pilots and wingmen. I am profundly impressed with the young lads who fought in BoB. The Norwegian fighter pilots have often told about the lads coming in during the early hours on bicycles because they were not old enough to drive, don their gear and mount their Hurricanes/Spits. For these lads to do on the job training like they did is for me more impressive than fully trained pilots claiming a dozen victories. I can only imagine how lonely it must have been up in the cockpit with restricted radio com. waiting to be jumped by a schwarme of Me-109's.
Seconded. It doesn't make sense that someone would claim the inferiority to British pilots when in reality, whether the Royal Navy did the best job ever, the RAF had to have an enourmous amount of participation.
Seeing the kill/loss ratio for the RAF fighters in the BOB was 1.8/1, compared to the Luftwaffe fighters 1.2/1, does this mean the Luftwaffe pilots were even worst shots ???? Or is this story just a way for the author to grab publicity to help sell his book?
Not trying to jump the thread here, but does anyone have a link to a page on the development of RAF fighter tactics??
It's like shooting at a fair, if you notice the rifle is not straight, adapt your shooting, so why would the brave fighters have kept shooting next to the targets? I agree with you and believe this is nothing but publicity and I think it is even offending for the veterans.
true. i remember reading an article a few months ago about the RN winning BoB. it seems it has become a fashion to claim that. Probably it's simply because it has already been said everything on the RAF vs luftwaffe, while the role of the RN during the BoB has never been deepened. Actually, i'm still wondering what were churchill's ideas about the RN during BoB.... which orders were given to RN in those crucial days?
i could not agree more! this is offensive to our veterans, and this offensive to me. this yahoo is a Dr.? of what?
Must be pretty desperate to get some name in "changing historical facts" because nobody wants to talk to him after this....besides, like many have said here, he in the end admits the pilots did their work so they must have done something very right!
I'm glad to read that searchers have condemned him and that he feels sorry now. A bit late, but he shouldn't have started in the first place. Praise the veterans from the Battle of England!
Supplement from the London Gazette detailing Battle of Britain in WW2 (1947). An archive PDF (3,2 MB) Click on the shortcut or in the icon, as you choose. The Battle of Britain 1940 - 3.2MB
I think we've seen a lot of this recently and perhaps the media has always done it but throwing up an article just to get press time/space is not uncommon and that's what this article is. Of course a lot of British pilots couldn't shoot straight. They learned while knocking down German planes sometimes on their first flights. Some were shot down themselves. This article is nothing new.
I'm just reading a book where they made a comparisson between the Allied pilots and they're german counterparts: hartmann had a 4.05 strike rate (352 victories for 1405 flights) and Bob Johnson had an 3.37 strike rate ( 27 victories for 91 flights). that ain't a really big difference in strike rate.
The people who write such press articles do not even realize that the men they are insulting are the ones who saved Britain in 1940 and that they probably owe them their freedom of speech and now they are making money on their backs...
