BoB Pilots "couldn't shoot straight"!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Witney
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something of a media-inspired dramatisation I should think, but not inaccurate.
From what I've read over the last 40 years, no doubt there were a few BoB pilots who could shoot very well, a lot who were fairly ok and a few who were rubbish. Same pattern throughout the war, in all the airforces.
And the BoB pilots were not helped by the official training (Area attacks, tight formations, tactics, gun harmonisation policy, tiny 303 bullets etc etc).
And poor b******s like Geoff Wellum who'd never even seen a Spit before being posted to his squadron! What chance did they have of hitting anything? Staying alive would have been step one.
Dying on Combat Flight Sim a few times is scary enough thanks. All honour to the guys who had to do it for real.
But if the Me 109's had had drop tanks - now there's a scary thought.
From what I've read over the last 40 years, no doubt there were a few BoB pilots who could shoot very well, a lot who were fairly ok and a few who were rubbish. Same pattern throughout the war, in all the airforces.
And the BoB pilots were not helped by the official training (Area attacks, tight formations, tactics, gun harmonisation policy, tiny 303 bullets etc etc).
And poor b******s like Geoff Wellum who'd never even seen a Spit before being posted to his squadron! What chance did they have of hitting anything? Staying alive would have been step one.
Dying on Combat Flight Sim a few times is scary enough thanks. All honour to the guys who had to do it for real.
But if the Me 109's had had drop tanks - now there's a scary thought.
Last edited by Sedbergh; 30th Oct 2007 at 14:43.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not again!!
Why does this author think he has found out something new. It's been known for such a long time.
But it does not detract from the heroism of the young lads in 1940, and what they did for us
Why does this author think he has found out something new. It's been known for such a long time.
But it does not detract from the heroism of the young lads in 1940, and what they did for us
Entertainingly, the Torygraph can't spell straight, since the historian in question is, I think, called Anthony Cumming, not Andrew...
He has a forthcoming article in the Institute for Historical Research journal explaining that the RN won the Battle and that the warship was the ultimate guarantor of British freedom. Which, without wishing to be critical, suggests that his research into the Battle may not only be less original than he thinks, but less detailed and less analytical... He was awarded a PhD last year entitled 'A Re-appraisal of the roles of the Home Fleet and Fighter Command', so if we're lucky [sic] a book might result. I don't want to slaughter him without doing him the courtesy of reading his article, but it would appear that he has rather missed the point. Mercifully, Churchill, Dowding and the RN didn't...
He has a forthcoming article in the Institute for Historical Research journal explaining that the RN won the Battle and that the warship was the ultimate guarantor of British freedom. Which, without wishing to be critical, suggests that his research into the Battle may not only be less original than he thinks, but less detailed and less analytical... He was awarded a PhD last year entitled 'A Re-appraisal of the roles of the Home Fleet and Fighter Command', so if we're lucky [sic] a book might result. I don't want to slaughter him without doing him the courtesy of reading his article, but it would appear that he has rather missed the point. Mercifully, Churchill, Dowding and the RN didn't...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Age: 93
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoB pilots
It was only a few days ago that I attended a lecture on 'Dreadnoughts' by a guy who was ex RN etc. He got to the number of hits with one ton shells in an engagement. Each shell which missed was probably as expensive as a Spitfire which, if I recall 'Wings for Victory' savings campaigns cost £5000!
My Sten gun- 'cos I was just a gash RAF corporal cost all of 7/6.
Spitfire pilots- if I recall- got 16/6 (if they had a thin blue ring)
Bollocks to this 'Duck pond admiral'
My Sten gun- 'cos I was just a gash RAF corporal cost all of 7/6.
Spitfire pilots- if I recall- got 16/6 (if they had a thin blue ring)
Bollocks to this 'Duck pond admiral'
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And poor b******s like Geoff Wellum who'd never even seen a Spit before being posted to his squadron! What chance did they have of hitting anything? Staying alive would have been step one.
As to staying alive , GW's descriptions of desperately outflying an Me109 that had got on his tail while he watched his He111 victim go down is breathtaking - as is his account of a Convoy patrol with a cloudbase of 500 feet in ten tenths and heavy rain and with his radio U/s. He still managed to chase a Ju88 half way to Holland and then find his way back to Manston.
Never mind staying alive, they had no business sending anyone up in that weather, but those young men simply did their duty without asking questions.
So many more had identical experiences but never lived to tell the tail.
Whether they could shoot straight or not is irrelevant. They were bloody heroes, the lot of them.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 1st Nov 2007 at 05:47.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a few who can't. Four days in Scotland last year and a friend came back empty handed, (if comprehensively hungover). Told him its cheaper to miss 'em in Norfolk.
On the BoB shooting standards, we won, so what?
On the BoB shooting standards, we won, so what?
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I followed a link on prune once to a web site they displayed the gunnery training manual. Apparentlt, the trick was to deflect *behind* the target 
I think this was because it was made by Bomber command and was really talking about firing in a direction other than straight ahead. Aiming behind the target was to compensate for the gunner's forward speed.
I think this was because it was made by Bomber command and was really talking about firing in a direction other than straight ahead. Aiming behind the target was to compensate for the gunner's forward speed.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I googled whatshisname's PhD
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=18359
on the grounds that it might make interesting reading. Some of the other offerings defy belief:
Still, as long as it's not my tax money.... 
Perhaps the point is, did the RAF win the BoB? Yes, because Goering didn't come back for more. So the role of the RN was secondary. But if the Luftwaffe had won, then what? Germany never had the capability to launch a large scale amphibious assault on the UK, even with complete air superiority. But why invade when Doenitz and a few more U-boats could have achieved victory by starvation?
I genuinely believe that Hitler had no idea what to do when Guderian reached the Channel in 7 days.
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=18359
on the grounds that it might make interesting reading. Some of the other offerings defy belief:
Development of an objective method of recording medieval wall plaster in Dorset churches
Perhaps the point is, did the RAF win the BoB? Yes, because Goering didn't come back for more. So the role of the RN was secondary. But if the Luftwaffe had won, then what? Germany never had the capability to launch a large scale amphibious assault on the UK, even with complete air superiority. But why invade when Doenitz and a few more U-boats could have achieved victory by starvation?
I genuinely believe that Hitler had no idea what to do when Guderian reached the Channel in 7 days.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why invade when Doenitz and a few more U-boats could have achieved victory by starvation?
But they didn't did they? Thanks to the bravery and courage of both the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy, but also not forgetting that of the RAF Coastal Command.
But they didn't did they? Thanks to the bravery and courage of both the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy, but also not forgetting that of the RAF Coastal Command.
Last edited by MReyn24050; 5th Nov 2007 at 11:54.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this 'new' idea had been accepted for a while. The LW alone could never have done enough to allow the Germans to launch an invasion in 1940. The only tactic they had that began to work was the effect of attacking the airfields themselves - and even had that been 100% effective the RAF would simply have moved its squadrons north, out of the 109's range, and operated from there.
The German army never had anything like the support it needed from a navy that had just got a severe kicking in Norway. Putting thousands of troops on barges used to trading on the canals of europe (many unpowered) would have been catastrophic. All the RN would have needed was one warship to get in amongst them and the crack invasion troops, who incidentally had, er, no amphibious training above river crossing) would have been destroyed. Remember, even in a relatively long campaign like Crete the Navy managed to keep the majority of its ships afloat. In a german invasion the ships would only need to make one, possibly suicidal, sortie. The LW didnt even have a stock of anti-capital-ship AP bombs.
They had no plan for resupply once the troops were ashore, and no bomber force capable of a long term strategic campaign - the RAF and USAAF didn't win the war even with 100 times the destructive power of the LW.
You will find no greater admirer of the Few than me. However, 'failure' in Aug/Sep (a retreat to Leicestershire by the RAF, the South coast towns more heavily bombed than before - neither exactly a war loser) would not have led to an invasion. What success did do however (and they did succeed in stopping the LW daylight bombing campaign) was immeasurable in both morale at home, and support from abroad.
The German army never had anything like the support it needed from a navy that had just got a severe kicking in Norway. Putting thousands of troops on barges used to trading on the canals of europe (many unpowered) would have been catastrophic. All the RN would have needed was one warship to get in amongst them and the crack invasion troops, who incidentally had, er, no amphibious training above river crossing) would have been destroyed. Remember, even in a relatively long campaign like Crete the Navy managed to keep the majority of its ships afloat. In a german invasion the ships would only need to make one, possibly suicidal, sortie. The LW didnt even have a stock of anti-capital-ship AP bombs.
They had no plan for resupply once the troops were ashore, and no bomber force capable of a long term strategic campaign - the RAF and USAAF didn't win the war even with 100 times the destructive power of the LW.
You will find no greater admirer of the Few than me. However, 'failure' in Aug/Sep (a retreat to Leicestershire by the RAF, the South coast towns more heavily bombed than before - neither exactly a war loser) would not have led to an invasion. What success did do however (and they did succeed in stopping the LW daylight bombing campaign) was immeasurable in both morale at home, and support from abroad.
The idea that the RN was significant has been accepted since at least 1974 when the BoB was wargamed at Sandhurst for a reason I forget.
The key point is that while the LW was poorly equipped for sinking capital ships, it was far better to ensure that they didn't have the chance to say 'Ah-ha! Now to see what the Stuka can do against ships!' and get some practice in. Those arguing that the Luftwaffe would never have sunk any ships seem to forget that Channel convoys (admittedly not capital ships) ran into serious bother, and that air attack accounted for a number of destroyers. Reduce the RN's non-capital ship capability and life might get interesting. It might not, but again - better that the Luftwaffe failed to get the opportunity to see whether or not it could overcome the RN, IMO...
The key point is that while the LW was poorly equipped for sinking capital ships, it was far better to ensure that they didn't have the chance to say 'Ah-ha! Now to see what the Stuka can do against ships!' and get some practice in. Those arguing that the Luftwaffe would never have sunk any ships seem to forget that Channel convoys (admittedly not capital ships) ran into serious bother, and that air attack accounted for a number of destroyers. Reduce the RN's non-capital ship capability and life might get interesting. It might not, but again - better that the Luftwaffe failed to get the opportunity to see whether or not it could overcome the RN, IMO...