Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Smithy

Members
  • Content Count

    979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Smithy last won the day on November 20 2012

Smithy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

894 Excellent

1 Follower

About Smithy

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

1,997 profile views
  1. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    I'll admit that I strenuously defended my position and my argument. Was I aggressive and impolite in doing that? Well I will admit that I reached a level of frustration but mostly because Mr Boak, either knowingly or unknowingly, seemed to be using straw man techniques - deliberately twisting, extrapolating and misrepresenting what I was saying. There are many, many things on this forum which I know little about, but one thing I am more than a little au fait with is the tactical and operational considerations in relation to the Battle of Britain so I will defend my position and arguments especially when it appears that someone is deliberately twisting or misrepresenting them. If this is referring to me, I'm a little perplexed. I don't post terribly often here and particularly over the warmer months when I don't tend to do much if any modelling and to be honest I can't even remember the last time I was involved in anything even remotely resembling an argument here on BM. In truth this whole hoofluff went on far too long and for my part in contributing to that, I do apologise.
  2. I was at a model show back in NZ in 2006ish and there were a couple of Luftwaffe builds there by a chap who had done them completely with brush painting. The finish was remarkable and being intrigued I had a chat with him and asked him how he had done them. The method you describe was exactly how he had done it.
  3. That's gorgeous John and I think the NMF looks wonderful. Your weathering just gets better and better, it looks like a used aircraft but not overdone and no "paving stone" gaps with the panel lines Hope the weather is warming up back home!
  4. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    I'd point out that your condescending attitude and the implied observation by yourself that your background somehow meant that you had a unique and superior grasp of the issue at hand wasn't exactly exemplary debating nor gentlemanly behaviour either. If you really like we can do this in relation to the BoB. We can start with comparing engagements both in terms of combatant numbers and losses from the smaller engagements from the first week or two of the official BoB period, say the 10th to the 20th July, and then compare with higher massed combats from late August and September. I'm very happy to do this as the figures demonstrate what I have already pointed out - much to your disbelief - in my previous 4 or 5 posts. I never said all engagements were. Rather I used it as an example of what the primary function of intercepting a bomber raid was. An RAF controller's primary function in intercepting a raid was to stop it from reaching its primary target or if this was impossible, as was often the case, to harry it in such a way as to adversely affect its ability to attack the target by disrupting its cohesion as a unit. Yes but for the umpteenth time the ratio of losses was not in direct proportion to the increase of belligerents. Which was my original point to begin with in post #30. That is why Park was apoplectic if bombing formations were intercepted after bombing their target when it could have been possible to intercept prior to bombing ingress. The preferred method of interception was to do so before bombs were dropped, and at optimal positioning and altitude. That is the one thing I can actually agree with you on.
  5. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    And yet once again for the umpteenth time you continue to miss my point and also make causal jumps on what I have said. Nowhere have I mentioned that greater numbers are less efficient. Rather I mentioned aircraft losses. And how the number of these does not increase by the same ratio as the number of aircraft involved. This is supported by any investigation of mass air combat engagements. If you wish to bring up efficiency in terms of combat aircraft formations, it actually is not merely about how many aircraft you shoot down but also whether you can disrupt an enemy formation. Breaking an enemy formation and making it turn for home because it has lost its formational cohesion is arguably just as important because you disrupt its ability to complete its mission objective, eg in terms of the BoB, you stop a formation bombing its raid target or bombing it as a cohesive raid formation, or you stop an intercepting unit from effectively engaging the formation it was tasked with intercepting. This is affected by greater numbers of aircraft. It is easier to disrupt and break enemy formations with larger numbers of aircraft. But the rate of increase of number of aircraft losses does not increase by the same rate increase of the amount of aircraft opposing them. I'm not into chest thumping but it's sometimes wise to consider that perhaps others here have worked professionally in relation to matters of historical aviation as well.
  6. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    Once again you were extrapolating what I was saying and trying to make connections with it to things which frankly I don't think are connectable For the last time, all I was saying was that in massed air combat there is a law of diminishing returns in terms of aircraft losses. I mentioned it as it was relevant to Troy's comment in #28 and it's perhaps something that many are unaware of, obviously you being one. This is a statistical provable model and I'm not the first one to espouse it in any way. Mike Spick was probably one of the first to do so in 1983 and it's been noted in many military treatises concerning examinations of massed air combat since. This is a statistical constant which is not dependent upon the methods of how aircraft came to be in the combat situation, merely what can be seen to happen from a statistical standpoint in terms of losses in relation to the increase in aircraft involved. I really can't make it clearer than that and TBH I don't think there's much point in saying the same thing over and over again.
  7. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    Once again you either have misunderstood what I said or you didn't actually read it. Looking back over my last two posts nowhere did I say that using small units was better, neither did I say that using smaller units doesn't lead to larger losses. I made no reference to Park's or controllers' scrambling strategy as the point I was making was unrelated to this. If you read those last two posts again, all I said was that massed air combat (and that includes engagements other than just the BoB) conforms to a law of diminishing returns. The ratio by which the numbers of belligerents increases does not equal a corresponding ratio increase in casualties. This was merely a response to Troy's points in post #28 as it was relevant to the second part of his post.
  8. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    Sorry Graham but I don't think you understand me. The point I am making is that air combat casualties are a good model for the rule of diminishing returns. That is that the increase in aircraft involved does not equate to the same ratio of increased casualties. So twice the combatants involved does not automatically equate to twice the number kills or casualties. This is borne out by studying actual engagements. When I get home I can illustrate this with examples of actual BoB interceptions. The percentage increase of a side's aircraft does not equate to that increase of losses on the other side. For example if the Luftwaffe 109s in a combat outnumber RAF fighters 4:1 it does not translate to 4 times the losses on the RAF from a 1:1 engagement. Air combat just does not work out that way.
  9. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    One of the really interesting things about air combat in the Battle of Britain (and actually all air combat) is that it conforms nearly perfectly to the law of diminishing returns. In other words the larger the force, the smaller the actual increase in killing effectiveness. It's the reason why a 109 Gruppen although twice the number of aircraft as an RAF fighter squadron was not twice as lethally effective in combat, ie it does not inflict twice the level of casualties. With all fighter units the actual "killing" was mostly done by a small number of pilots and combat effectiveness seems to be more a matter of whether this core of pilots could maintain cohesion in combat. Although obviously number of aircraft shot down affected a fighter formation, just as importantly for combat effectiveness is unit cohesion and integrity in combat. Once a fighter unit becomes broken up into single elements, or elements of pairs of aircraft, and with other aircraft breaking for home because of lost contact with other aircraft, then it's effectiveness as a fighting body is dramatically reduced. I wholeheartedly recommend Bungay's book too Troy. I will say though with one caveat, and that's to get/read the original version of it. For the 70th anniversary an illustrated and highly edited version was released and although good, it doesn't have nearly the scale nor in depth examination that the original has.
  10. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    I was merely trying to make the point that Hurricanes against the bombers, Spitfires against the fighter escorts was actually the preferred way by controllers of marshalling an interception and wasn't some dubious claim which is what I thought you had stated in your previous post. If my interpretation was incorrect, I apologise.
  11. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    Actually it's not inaccurate at all. Even before the Battle started and after the experiences in France it was accepted within the RAF and AM that the Hurricane was inferior in several principal performance aspects to that of its primary fighter opposition (the 109), these being speed and rate of climb and dive. For that reason controllers (and even Park) tried whenever possible to send Spitfire squadrons and flights against the escorts whilst Hurricane formations attempted to tackle the bombers. This is very well documented. However due to the hectic nature of fighting and Fighter Command attempting to intercept raids, often with little time and with resources stretched, it was rarely possible to perfectly coordinate both Hurricane and Spitfire formation in such optimal fashion.
  12. Smithy

    Pre War Hurricanes

    Scrambling and subsequent assembly of the Big Wing and successful interception of a raid at correct altitude and positioning was one of the major problems of it, and it's for that reason why the Big Wing's best successes were during the week of 7th to 15th September, a time when the Luftwaffe were using massed raids nearing the maximum depth of their penetration. Another often overlooked problem with the Big Wing was the trouble with command and control of it. The lack of multi channel radio communication with the squadrons inside the wing meant that the formation lacked tactical flexibility, meaning the wings were restricted to following their wing leader. This less than perfect radio situation also meant that the Big Wing formation tended to fracture and degrade quickly after initial engagement with the enemy meaning that control of it as a fighting entity was usually only during the first contact with the enemy.
  13. Still haven't finished mine although it's on the last lap now... https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235052863-airfix-172-hurricane-i/page/2/#comments
  14. Vingtor do a couple of nice Norwegian sets from the end of the war with the RAF administered 331 and 332 Sqns, and also postwar in full RNoAF service. Bjørnar Norås' Norseman Decals also did a couple of wonderful sets back in 2001 and they were also excellent. I have them and have used them a couple of times. Probably difficult to find now although a request in the WTB section might bring luck.
  15. Horses for courses then.
×
×
  • Create New...