i need help please!!

[Krajinaforce]

Originally posted by limey_defence

On to the planes, it seems you have a lack of knowledge in that department also. The RAF alone sent out 3000 Mk.IIB and IIC Hurricanes in 1941 and 1942. Of which were able to dogfight with the Bf-109E and Fs in that time. How is this known? Well the Hurricane Mk. I was the mainstay fighter of the Battle of Britain and achieved victories over the Bf-109s just as the Spitfires did. With the Mk.II they had an easier time. The Mk. IIC having four 20mm cannons instead of the usual eight .303cal machine guns. On top of that Mk. IV and Mk. IID were given in 1942 and 1943 although in limited numbers were very successful ground attack, and tank busting aircraft with two 40mm cannons under the wings. All variants saw a lot of service in the war and all were very good in their roles. They were very easy to handle and rookie pilots good fly them like experts, something the Soviet Airforce was very happy about.
Also in the years 1941-1943 the Soviet Airforce had the pleasure of 1,300 Spitfires (Although I do not know which Mks) of which were superior to the Bf-109E, Fs and Gs the latter being if the Soviet were given Mk. V or above.

Don't blame the aircraft because Soviet pilots were too inexperienced or poorly trained to fly them. When you see a Spitfire dogfighting with a Fw-190 or Bf-109G and coming out on top, when in RAF colours. Then hear of a Soviet piloted one being shot down by a Brewster Buffalo of the Finnish airforce you begin to wonder the Soviets let fly those things.

Firstly a lot of delivered Hurricanes were not new planes but rather a worn out and used BoB veterans, often with missing parts. Many of those British planes needed to be refitted or repaired.
Secondly Soviets had to modify Hurricanes to improve their capabilities in air combat and ground attack. Soviets fitted those planes with ShVAK cannons(better then British Hispano cannons), UBK machine guns, underwing rockets RS-82 and underwing bombs FAB-100. Also the armor was improved.
Thirdly Hurricanes were slower then Yak-1, 109F and 109E at all altitudes, it couldn’t outdive Germans, bad climb rate together with lack of spare parts made Hurricanes clearly inferior to German planes. With such shortcomings Hurricanes suffered big losses. Pilot skills alone with this plane is simply not enough.
As for Spitfires, Soviets again got worn out MkVb and MkIX Spitfires in 1943. They did see action on Kuban front but they weren’t impressive. They were withdrawn from action that year. Soviet Air Force was short of fighters and had to make use of anything it could get.

Originally posted by limey_defence

The tank one is pretty simple, without those tanks given
by Britain and America the advance by the German forces would have been faster, meaning victory. Even then I've seen pictures of a full platoon of Mk.II Matildas, battle hardened, driving along in the Ukraine in 1945. Delivered in 1942, didn't they last a long time.

The German advance came to a standstill outside of Moscow in late 1941. The main Lend Lease tanks, Valentines and M3 Grants, wouldn't reach Russia until early 1942. Too little too late. In 1941 Soviets got only second-rate tanks such as Matildas and M3 Stuarts.

Originally posted by limey_defence

If you have read another book called Panzer Leader (again) by Heinz Guderian. Who on several occasions met Hitler and discussed the future plans of war. You would understand that Hitler and Germany did not want to attack Yugoslavia. The reason this occured was because of Mussolinis private war, after losing from a British counter-attack in May 1941, Germany had to postpone the Soviet invasion to quell the resistance. This was NOT something Hitler wanted, and something Hitler was very angry about.

Hitler gave Yugoslavia ultimatum to sign pact with Axis. After a twist Axis pact was rejected. Hitler took his revenge on Yugoslavia but payed a high price by postponement of Barbarosa. Nothing to do with British and Mussolini. British did however influence Serbs not to sign the pact. And that’s because they were desperate for someone else to enter the war against Germany. British needed another front against Germany because they couldn’t have sustained German onslaught forever.

Originally posted by limey_defence

It wasn't a case of who invented what, it was a case of who gave the Soviet Union what. Tools, skilled workers, machines and designs were all given to the Soviet Union by those countries mentioned. Just accept it and avoid looking like a fool.

And without this person you wouldn’t even have industrialisation in the first place.
http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/te...#_Toc496780563

Originally posted by limey_defence


That's a nice little ending, I fail to see how you come to that conclusion though. As history quite clearly shows Germanys first defeat was over the English Channel. In that time Britain with a mere 704 aircraft defended against the onslaught of the Luftwaffe with 3,700 aircraft. Britain had been defended, it had survived and it had won. No amount of men could have got Germany across the Channel without air superiority, something it did not have.

Battle of Britain was one battle. Britain won one battle not the whole war. British are lucky that Hitler wanted to finish Soviet Union first before continuing an offensive against GB. That was one tactical mistake for Hitler.
It is just pathetic how much you overrate GB in that war. And I have a feeling the only reason you are on this forum is to stress your western supposed superiority over other countries.

[limey_defence]

The Hurricanes sent out were not ex-BoB planes, easily stated because it was the Hurricane Mk. Is in the BoB not the Hurricane Mk.IIB and IIC. They all had plenty of parts, and were in great service order.
The Hurricanes started to fail because of the many changes of airfields forced on them, which no plane can handle. The improvements (of which only 1000 of the 3000 were done) were improved cockpit armour and extra bomb racks. The guns were replaced with two 12.7mm and two 20mm on some of the IIB variants to replace the eight .303. None of the 20mm cannon variants had armament change.

The Hurricane was slower than the 109 and had a slower dive. It could out-climb the 109E, out turn all 109s and was much more durable and easier to fly. It could also out-roll the Yak-1 and out-turn it.
The Spitfires (which were far superior to Russian aircraft) were superior to German aircraft in almost every aspect, the Mk. I alone could out-turn, out-climb, out-dive and was faster than the 109E and F. It is widely regarded that the Mk. XIV Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, some pilots of the Mk. IX believe that to be a better handler.
The reason that the Spitfires might have looked bad over Russia was because of inferior Soviet pilots who could not handle them. They were not rookie planes, in the hands of the RAF they were dogfighting with 109Gs, Fw-190s, Me-262s and anything else the Germans could throw at them and coming out on top a lot of the time.
7 Spitfires, however, in Soviet hands were shot down by Brewster Buffalos. There's something lacking in pilot skill there.

The Matilda Mk. II could withstand anything in the German arsenal outside of 100m, except the FlaK 88 in 1941. And when a tank delivered in 1941 lasts up until 1945 while being pushed through many battles only a fool would call it second rate.

Again, your information is false. The British counter-attack is what stalled Barbarossa. Hitler didn't want to wage war on another front, and neither did his generals. They had to though because of British attacks.

Your attempt to make me believe that Tesla created Western Industrilisation is a foolish attempt. British industrial revolution was some years before his birth, and his attempt to prove that there was no emission of energy from an atom splitting gives nothing to industrilisation.

Battle of Britain only was on battle. As Kursk and Stalingrad were only one battle, each. Battle of Britain however was the first defeat Hitler faced which led him to turn to the Soviet Union before Britain was taken. Had Britain fallen Hitler controlled Europe, and was in a great situation to stretch into Russia without interferance.
Britain had won, and the Soviet Union had not saved them. It wasn't until a year after the BoB that Russia was attacked by Germany. Meanwhile Britain was out-producing Germany in planes, something Germany would need for a successful invasion of Britain.

[Krajinaforce]

Originally posted by limey_defence
The Hurricanes sent out were not ex-BoB planes, easily stated because it was the Hurricane Mk. Is in the BoB not the Hurricane Mk.IIB and IIC. They all had plenty of parts, and were in great service order.

Many of those sent Mk II’s were used planes with flight time over 100 hours. They did lack spare parts especially airscrews and propeller blades.

Originally posted by limey_defence
The Hurricanes started to fail because of the many changes of airfields forced on them, which no plane can handle.

[/b]

Due to its undercarriage design Hurricanes could easily nose over during landings, taxi and take offs on rough airstrips. And then break their wooden propellers. It’s the design of a plane not airfields.

Originally posted by limey_defence

The Hurricane was slower than the 109 and had a slower dive. It could out-climb the 109E, out turn all 109s and was much more durable and easier to fly. It could also out-roll the Yak-1 and out-turn it.
[/b]

Hurricanes could never out climb 109E. Turn rate was the same as with Yak-1 (19 seconds on 1000 meters) but with Yak-1 being faster and better climber. Not to mention Hurricanes peashooters of machine guns.

Originally posted by limey_defence

The Spitfires (which were far superior to Russian aircraft) were superior to German aircraft in almost every aspect, the Mk.

[/b]

That’s a good laugh.

Originally posted by limey_defence
The reason that the Spitfires might have looked bad over Russia was because of inferior Soviet pilots who could not handle them.

[/b]

Yeah, always blame the Soviet pilot.

Originally posted by limey_defence
The Matilda Mk. II could withstand anything in the German arsenal outside of 100m, except the FlaK 88 in 1941. And when a tank delivered in 1941 lasts up until 1945 while being pushed through many battles only a fool would call it second rate.

[/b]

Only during 1941 and 1942 were they invulnerable to German tank’s gun. Later they might have used them in a non-combat or secondary role when they lasted that long. I doubt they were still in service with Soviet army approaching end of the war.

Originally posted by limey_defence
Again, your information is false. The British counter-attack is what stalled Barbarossa. Hitler didn't want to wage war on another front, and neither did his generals. They had to though because of British attacks.

[/b]

No.

Originally posted by limey_defence
Your attempt to make me believe that Tesla created Western Industrilisation is a foolish attempt. British industrial revolution was some years before his birth, and his attempt to prove that there was no emission of energy from an atom splitting gives nothing to industrilisation.

[/b]

See the full list of patents. Radio and radar, which helped a lot British to win BoB, were also Tesla’s inventions. My point is that even without GB, industrialization would eventually take place in Russia or are you implying that without GB world would never become industrialized? It had to start with someone.

Originally posted by limey_defence
Battle of Britain only was on battle. As Kursk and Stalingrad were only one battle, each. Battle of Britain however was the first defeat Hitler faced which led him to turn to the Soviet Union before Britain was taken. Had Britain fallen Hitler controlled Europe, and was in a great situation to stretch into Russia without interferance.
Britain had won, and the Soviet Union had not saved them. It wasn't until a year after the BoB that Russia was attacked by Germany. Meanwhile Britain was out-producing Germany in planes, something Germany would need for a successful invasion of Britain.

[/b]

BoB decided fate of a Britain for a period of time. Battles at Kursk and Stalingrad decided the victor of Eastern front. After these battles Germans were being pushed back all the way back to Berlin and lost the war.

Had Germany won BoB they would still need a ground invasion to conquer Britain. This would really delay Barbarosa and help Soviets. Unless British would surrender immediately after BoB. Germany would need to position some of its troops there as well to prevent American invasion. This would take some load off of Soviet army as well when facing Barbarosa. USA would enter a full-scale war against Germany as soon as 1941. After all USA entered WW1 and WW2 mostly because of Britain alone. USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa would send to Europe as many battleships and aircraft carriers as possible. Allies would need to place their troops in North Africa from which they can launch attacks. This would result in a heavy ground battles for North Africa.
With all this manslaughter going on in Western front Germans would delay Barbarosa for a considerable period of time. Soviets would have more time to prepare themselves for a war (since Barbarosa took them by surprise). They would have more time to catch up with German planes and tanks. Not to mention how many human lives this could have saved them if they pulled out their civilian population on time and it would be better for Soviet industries as well. Germans couldn’t afford anymore to send as many soldiers to Eastern front either.
The fall of Britain would likely trigger events that would help Soviets a lot more then all lend-lease aid and everything else Britain did for victory.

[Balamut]

How could you fall so low, limey.
First, it was lend-lease, which saved us from defeat, now this ... Again, your information is false. The British counter-attack is what stalled Barbarossa. Hitler didn't want to wage war on another front, and neither did his generals. They had to though because of British attacks.... What next? British paratrooper battalion under Moscow saved Red square?