tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post3023483220728899272..comments2024-03-29T11:30:56.737+11:00Comments on Vintage Aeroplane Writer: Dominion Forces defending Britain, 1940Vintage Aero Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16563126840290182376noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-25565043214618326502015-09-17T23:07:35.351+10:002015-09-17T23:07:35.351+10:00Thanks, Ross, very good. Either 'Battle for......Thanks, Ross, very good. Either 'Battle for...' or 'Battle of...' the data and parameters for the article were poorly set out, which was my concern. Unless it was within something like a conference papers set, which it wasn't. (We've all then gone further.) On the other hand, I think the author does a great job looking at the reality of the situation on the ground at the time, which I would argue is a distinct area to consider from, say, examining the chances of Operation Sealion's succeeding. We certainly agree on needing a Naval input and a holistic view of the whole thing, and without the hyperbolic reaction we got when the RN's claims were over-sold. It's interesting that you cite another History Today article as causing this reaction. The journal does, I think an excellent job, but like the recent 'Historians for Britain recent schmozzle, sometimes gets it badly wrong between 'provocative' and 'partial'.Vintage Aero Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16563126840290182376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-18071408165325105922015-09-17T22:20:11.548+10:002015-09-17T22:20:11.548+10:00The issue is that Andrew is not discussing the Bat...The issue is that Andrew is not discussing the Battle of Britain but the Battle for Britain. This is currently the in vogue debate among academics and is one well worth having. In my view, and the reason that the RAF's role was so important, is that it was a failed amphibious operation. The importance of this is that the RAF spent a lot of time during the inter-war years arguing that you couldn't launch an invasion unless you had air superiority. As such, the RAF proved its view by winning the Battle and this was something the RAF's senior commanders also recognised. However, we shouldn't ignore the fact that both the Army and Royal Navy were preparing for invasion and we should not ignore that part of narrative. Indeed, as I argued in this review (https://secondworldwaroperationsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/book-review-the-royal-navy-and-the-battle-of-britain/) of Anthony Cumming's work on the Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain, is that we need a holistic account of the Battle of Britain. Only by taking account of the the Army and Royal Navy's preparation can we truly understand the RAF's significant role and that of the support given by the Dominions and Empire forces.<br /><br />RossAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412498724467159483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-52855658291912009492015-09-17T18:42:14.493+10:002015-09-17T18:42:14.493+10:00Thanks, Kristen! Of course I defer to you on the F...Thanks, Kristen! Of course I defer to you on the Fighter Command numbers question, and as we touched on before in discussion, it seems like a never-rechecked count from years ago. I wonder if you could recommend a book on the real Australians in Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain?Vintage Aero Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16563126840290182376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-59255609396176820562015-09-17T18:36:52.471+10:002015-09-17T18:36:52.471+10:00Well said, James. I will nitpick the article as we...Well said, James. I will nitpick the article as well ... just who were the 37 Australians? No one agrees on the total so how can they be so conclusive? Kristen Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997660059407727051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-63839803754564055522015-06-20T20:25:15.214+10:002015-06-20T20:25:15.214+10:00Thanks Errol. Another element that's just the ...Thanks Errol. Another element that's just the data used incorrectly.Vintage Aero Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16563126840290182376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841633648354600027.post-54161949113534492152015-06-20T17:45:31.186+10:002015-06-20T17:45:31.186+10:00Good points.
To further nitpick the article:
"...Good points.<br />To further nitpick the article:<br />"This led to volunteers travelling to Britain to join the Royal Air Force, 134 men from New Zealand, 112 Canadians, 37 Australians and 25 from South Africa. "<br />These numbers refer to those serving with Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. There were some 200 NZers with the RAF in England at the outbreak of war, and I assume more joined directly before the EATS pipeline was established.<br />http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/d-day/nzers-in-the-raf<br />Also, from the known correspondence between the AU, NZ and UK governments, the diversion of the AIF and NZEF troops to Britain had more to do with Italy's expected declaration of war endangering the convoy than a requirement to have troops on hand. Once there, only troops on anti-invasion duties got a reasonable amount of equipment, so Freyberg pushed for the assignment so effective training could continue. The NZ troops had been scattered throughout NZ for their initial training, and had never operated together.ErrolGChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917271365446486696noreply@blogger.com