Spartak

Thing with Stalingrad, there were rumours that Hitler was on the verge of making a pact with Japan, if he captured Stalingrad, Japan would attack Russia from the East (Russia would implode).

Also there were rumours that Stalin would surrender if Hilter took Moscow.

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

james t kirk

Are you on glue?

The germans were nowhere NEAR gaining air superiority over the British. Not even close. 2 to 3 weeks, please.

The spitfire (designed by sir Reginald Mitchell) was a superior plane to the Bf 109 in every way. The spitfire could out manouvre, and out gun any 109. All the spitfire pilot had to do was turn and bring those 8 brownings to bear.

You'd better do a little reading...

http://www.constable.ca/spitfire.htm

The Bf 109 was designed by willie Messerschmitt who based his designs on a glider design. The thing only had two machine guns and half the time the German pilots were killed landing the P.O.S.

The American Revolution eh, hmm, well it may surprise you, but the British never really fought that hard to keep the US in the empire, in fact, they had begun negotiations with the "colonies" before the revolution to grant America it's indpendence.

Dragonlich

James, what you seem to forget is a thing called "tactics". The British used a three-plane system, while the Germans used two-plane teams. The results: both German fighters were usually covered, while the British third plane was not. Also, German pilots had a lot of experience already (Spain, Poland, France, the Low countries, etc), while the British did not. There were many trained German pilots, fighting against an ill-prepared, ill-trained, understaffed RAF.

If you look at tanks, you'll see the same thing: French heavy tanks were superior to most German tanks, but they were used badly - distributed all over the battlefield, instead of concentrated in one armoured fist. This was also a matter of superior equipment, but inferior tactics.

Finally, the spitfire might have been better than the BF109 (which had two MGs and a cannon, mind!), but there weren't many spitfires around, and there weren't many pilots to fly them. The typical British fighter at the time was the Hurricane, if I remember correctly. And thanks to constant attacks, the British pilots could barely rest or recover, something that also has a profound effect on the end results.

In short: just because one machine is technically better than another does not mean it will always beat it.

hobo

Hitler was the weakest link the Germans had in WW2. If either he was more sane and listened to his generals more, or someone smarter had taken his place, then Germany would probably be a lot bigger now. If they bunkered up more and hoarded all the resources then they could have just built up their forces for a while before going for another run. Constant attacks are sure to wear down even the best of armies.

james t kirk

Dragon, yes, but the British also employed an amazingly simple, yet impossible to knock out fighter production assembly line.

Spitfires and Hurricanes were assembled in pieces all over the country and could be put together at any number of locations. By contrast, the Germans used one central facility for all fighter production and the British would regularly bomb the shit out of it with their heavy bombers (the Lancaster and Halifax). (The Germans didn't even HAVE a heavy bomber.)

In the end, those tired, exhausted British / Polish / Canadian / even a few Americans won the day.

G5_Todd

we wouldnt be speaking german...but england prolly would

__________________
"....and when you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy."

-General Franks