Discussion in 'Recreational Discussion' started by Phil Perry, May 30, 2018.
The Neville Chamberlain approach has something to be said for it.
I'm amazed at how we never knew things like Billy Hughes nasty contribution. Thanks Old K . We were all victims of propaganda.
Here's an example of how effective propaganda can be: When my mother-in-law saw a bit of a Zero in the Winellie museum, she didn't believe it... "No", she said, "those Japanese planes were very crude things made from sticks and rags". ( This was similar to how our soldiers were told the Japanese troops were similar to monkeys and therefore not much more dangerous).
She was a teenager during the war when she was told about the planes, but after 60 years of having the opportunity to know better you would have thought the wartime lies would have been overwritten.
The only thing that Chamberlain achieved was the 12 month opportunity he afforded Churchill to begin the task of building Britain’s defences. Hitler gave Churchill another year when he focussed his rage on the Eastern Block instead of following immediately with an invasion across the Channel.
The Australian Government was similarly totally unprepared for war, especially a war in which aviation would dominate. The propaganda around the Japanese and their military activities was intense and very little information flowed to the general populace here even after Darwin and many other towns had been bombed. Decisions had already been taken to sacrifice northern Australia and disarm the citizens to prevent guerilla warfare continuing after occupation.
Our Government also agreed to the subjugation of our RAAF, initially to British commanders and then to MacArthur and his colleagues. We were left out of the final push to Japan altogether as the General fulfilled his pledge to “return”.
Not our proudest moments....
Maybe believing that was the only way she could cope with the situation.
My wife's dad was adamant that all Japanese pilots were short sighted and needed thick spex.
And the Jews, not surprisingly, quite happily took on the task of overseeing those reparations and collecting the 30+ billion dollars.
These are the little details that aren't mentioned in school.
A decade? Japan's 50 year occupation of China, Taiwan and Korea persecuting and starving millions to death was happening before WW1.
Many people don't know where Chairman Mao came from, he easily rallied a majority of China together directly due to internal Japanese and external American capitilism tearing the country apart and killing millions. Imagine how bad it was in China that Mao's alternates were a better choice.
Japan was an Ally only as to not have interference while grabbing the German controlled Pacific Islands they so badly wanted.
Japan were the bullies needed to be stopped. You need to study Chinese and Pacific Rim history from the late 1800s to get the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonial_empire
Why? What for?
Here you go. This is back on topic.
I have a theory about pommy engineering... Often, the show is owned by gentry who look down upon "base mechanics" with the result that their stuff is very hard to service.
They looked down upon the working class in general and treated common soldiers in WW1 very badly. The soldiers at Gallipoli suffered from malnutrition, what an awful indictment of the then richest country in the world. Turks at Gallipoli ate much better food.
So the Spitfire was expensive to make and hard to service. Why would this worry the average aristocrat in England?
And the Catalinas, Hudson’s and Beaufighters, and even the Boomerangs and Wirraways, shockingly under-armed as they were.
Spitfires are overated and pale to other planes from WW2.
The myth of the Spitfire winning the Battle of Britain is grossly and unfairly overstated, the Hurricane actually downed the bulk of German aircraft. Also note the Hurricane had to go up against both the BF109s and the Bomber guns whereas the Spitfire could pick at just the BF109s, often when they were busy chasing a Hurricane. The BF109s were often low on fuel and on order to stay close to the Bombers limiting their tactical choices. That single point is quoted by some experts as the main reason for the BF109s losses in the BoB, alongside the Germans underestimating the RAF's numbers..
Some consider that the Spitfire almost lost the war for Britain based on it's complexity, not to mention cost, causing long production rates that in some periods actually fell behind the loss rate, and it's turn around time on the ground that was near a half hour compared to the Hurricane's 10 minutes. Their long repair times, besides the difficulty of repairing them, are well known.
The Spitfire was very much the British class system in effect, there were Spitfire pilots, and then there was everybody else. WW2 aircraft history was written by pompus asses on the victorious side.
I just want to make it clear that I don't like Spitfires very much, in case that's not very clear.
The Hurricane was an earlier generation aircraft witnessed by its much lower top speed, lower rate of climb and lower service ceiling using the same power plant. It wasn’t susceptible to multiple upgrades that ended up more than doubling horsepower and dramatically increasing performance as was the case with the Spitfire.
There were many more Hurricanes than Spitfires during B.B. which accounts for the greater number of claimed kills as does the Hurricanes focus on bombers where the number of multiple mis-claims for the one kill was higher as well.
There were better aircraft than the Spitfire later in the war but, at the time of the B.B. it was as good as any.
The Spitfires armament, like the Hurricane could not match the 50 CAL of either the Mustang or P40 and was the result of outdated thinking in RAF command, but it was still pretty effective. It didn’t roll or climb as fast as the BF109 but it’s very predictable stall characteristics gave ample warning for capable pilots that allowed the, to out turn most 109 pilots. It was an exceptionally pretty Aeroplane with its highly aerodynamic design and, while the rag and tube of the Hurricane was easier to repair, it was able to handle significantly higher aerodynamic loads.
the Germans and the British kept on leapfrogging one another with new developments; the Germans with totally new designs and the Brits with updates of the existing airframe in those first three years.
Galland certainly seemed to recognise the different capabilities and he was there so probably knew something about it, I venture to suggest.
whatever, I have loved them since a young child and would die happy after one ride in a Spitfire.
For what reason?
That is purely the class system I mentioned, there was NO logical economic, production or maintenance reason whatsoever to continue to develop the Spitfire after early 1943. The Mustang, along with others, was quite capable enough to take care of the skies, and the Mustang was also used very effectively by the British, who commissioned the darn thing, and used a British engine.
Nothing but pure arrogant snobbery, Sir Mortimer Pennington Jollybottom the VI wouldn't be seen flying anything but a Spit Old Chap! There's a time for Nationalism, and there's a time to pull your head out of your ask me what I really think.
How on earth do you manage to drag that old class war bollocks into this? The one time when the classes in the UK get put that craziness to one side and get on with tasks together is during a war! Mitchel was working class for info and most of the pilots came from amid of grammar school and overseas. This whole post is getting out of hand. The Spitfire was continually developed as there wasn't a readily available alternative at the start of the war and supplies from the US were not guaranteed so it is entirely logical that you keep pruning what you can to the best of your ability. Dont forget that Hawker also carried on development and produced one of the greatest piston powered planes of the war with the Sea fury and Tempest etc. To reduce the efforts of this great generation to a sorry game of top trumps is really sad to see. Anyone who has ever engineered or built anything realises that there is no "best" it is a question of compromise between many conflicting constraints. If your still not sure ask the pilots of the time what plane they would fly and even the Germans from the battle of Britain gave credit where it is due.
I blame that Muck Stirrer Phil Perry for posting such a controversial piece in the first instance. . .
I reckon we need a show of hands to ban the bugger for a coupla months. . . bleedin' Larrikin. . . .
Looks like Wicko's monster at Tyabb.
My Mum only ever called the Japanese "Nips" and the Germans "Huns" My Dads youngest brother was killed in a air battle off Good enough Island by the Japanese and my Dad was a POW cutesy of the Germans , She never forgot .
And then there were all the "atrocities" they were supposed to have committed. For a few decades I mixed daily with a lot of Japanese, in Australia and in regular visits to Japan, and I could never make the link between the polite and helpful people I encountered, and the depraved soldiers who committed the most obscene atrocities known to man
Then I read the 444 page book the War Diaries of Weary Dunlop, who was a POW on the Burma Railway, singled out as the scene of many of these atrocity. he didn't like them, and many Australians and British died from malnutrition, but so did many Japanese soldiers, and Weary, as a doctor, administered equally to sick Japanese. There were no atrocities mentioned in the book, and when things got heated and guns were raised by soldiers on POWs, Weary just walked between them and that was that. The problem was lack of supply, and very unhealthy country, and he worked daily with senior Japanese to keep both sides alive.
Separate names with a comma.