[rof120]

Hello Nick,

Once more I can tell you that I understand your point of view. OK, a large part of my remarks is off-topic, this is true. Nevertheless I don't consider it superfluous to see what is on the side of the main topic, like, for example: "Why was it possible that air battles took place between French and British (Fulmars in this case) aircraft (and where, if at all)? They were allies weren't they?" Another way to look at it is as follows: if the author of a post feels it interesting, or useful, to give explanations or details outside the strict scope of the initial discussion, why not? I'll bet most TOCH-readers were (are) not aware of the events and problems I discussed here. Many probably don't (or didn't) know that British battleships shelled some French naval ships moored in harbour with their biggest guns (406 mm calibre or so). This explains many subsequent events including air combat between French and British aircraft (North Africa, Syria, etc.) and also the all too close relationship (collaboration) between Pétain's Vichy-France et Nazi-Germany (hugh!). Air combat is one of the main areas of discussion here isn't it. Or didn't I understand what TOCH-readers find of interest? In my eyes British-French air combat was terrible but we can't pretend it didn't happen - sadly. I can only repeat: answering Keith's question about "Fulmar" fighters (I suspect that many people didn't even know that "Fulmars" were fighters! Me, for example.) could hardly be done without explaining the context of British-French hostility and the general situation and events.

Oh yes I am perfectly able - me too - to write very short replies which hardly anybody is able to really understand, except possibly - in this Fulmar case - Keith and a few others. This would have a great advantage for myself: save a lot of my very precious time (many hours). "Very precious" because - you won't believe it - I am extremely busy.