Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain

[edwest2]

Nick,

Pure, 100% nonsense.

I never, ever assume or concern myself with the gaps. Should someone make the EFFORT to look for new material, fine.

I have never bought a book filled with guesswork. I always assume the author has done his best with the material known at the time.

I refuse to tie myself into knots about an obsession called "what if." It is unhealthy.

To other readers here, what are the best books on your shelf about any particular aircraft and its combat history? Anyone? What makes them the best? Guesses or accuracy?

I don't mean to be rude Nick, but you are writing crap.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest2

I don't mean to be rude Nick, but you are writing crap.

But somehow you managed it despite yourself.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

But somehow you managed it despite yourself.

Well, there are those rare occasions that warrant it.

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. Fact. Everything else is bollocks! (Stop laughing, Nick!)

2. Confirmation bias, yeah right! Only found the remains of Richard III - you could say THAT was confirmation bias 100% in excelsis!

3. '...If not, then you present information to your readers...' Jeez, Nick, that's what I've been doing since 1990!!! That's all that one can do!

4. '...However, neither is The Truth With Capital Letters...' Everything that is 'Truth' is not negotiable. Hans-Ulrich Kettling was shot down into captivity on 15th August 1940. Truth. NOTHING new will be discovered to counter that fact. '...experience suggests to us something new will be discovered in the next 30 years...' Only on those things that are not factually proven 100%...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

1. Fact. Everything else is bollocks! (Stop laughing, Nick!)

You, me, everyone is constantly navigating life on best guesses/things that have worked so far. If that leads you to conclude that life is bollocks, so be it.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Only found the remains of Richard III - you could say THAT was confirmation bias 100% in excelsis!

I was referring rather to the bit where, on TV, she was insisting Richard didn't have a spinal curvature, it was all Tudor propoganda. Her face when the skeleton emerged was an absolute picture!

Again with the Princes in the Tower documentary, her supporters had uncovered some undoubtedly interesting documents in mainland Europe but for her there was only one interpretation of them.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

3. '...If not, then you present information to your readers...' Jeez, Nick, that's what I've been doing since 1990!!! That's all that one can do!

You can also try and make sense of it, indicate what you think it supports or discredits.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

'...experience suggests to us something new will be discovered in the next 30 years...' Only on those things that are not factually proven 100%...

You mentioned V.(Z)/LG 1. they seem to come up quite a lot in ULTRA from 1940, I guess because of the particular networks being broken at the time. TNA HW 5/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cover France and the BoB; about 450 pages each. If you've used those, then well done for some very heavy lifting but if not, here's a couple I found in passing:

CX/JQ/264

3. At 0700/29 ZG 76 stated that they probably required no more weather reports on 29/8. At 0800/29 a report was sent to V.(Z)/LG 1 saying that the 14. Staffel were delayed in starting by weather.

4. At 0930/29 Lt. Adametz reported to V.(Z)/LG 1 that the 14. Staffel, who were apparently at LIGESCOURT, could not get through on account of bad weather. Further orders were awaited.

CX/JQ/269

16. On 30/8 Oblt. Haarmann informed ZG 76 and V.(Z)/LG 1 that the Staffeln of the latter were to exchange unfit a/c for fit ones from the “Ablasskommando”, whenever they fell short of the strength of 6 a/c in readiness, as returned through OC Fighters in Luftflotte 3.

It was added that the OC Fighters could not countermand this order — in fact he handed over the responsibility for protecting the aerodrome of V.(Z)/LG 1 to its group-commander.

CX/JQ/309

14. On 14/9 Obltn. von Gravenreuth informed V.(Z)/LG 1 (Rocquancourt) that immediately after the arrival of 15. Staffel in Rocquancourt, 14. Staffel was to be ready to move to Ligescourt. 14. Staffel would leave a/c ‘A’ and ‘H’ behind in Rocquancourt for 15. Staffel; and, in exchange, would take over a/c ‘G’ and ‘I’ in Ligescourt. The remaining crews of 14. Staffel would be transported on 14/9 to Ligescourt by the Geschwader Ju 52.

Probably won't change the world but not without interest, I thought.

[John Vasco]

Nick,

1. I posted 'bollocks' to what you had posted. NOT that life was bollocks. Do try to keep up!

2. You said 'confirmation bias', not me. I pointed something out that was, 100%. Now you deflect. Richard had scoliosis, no one is denying that. And Philippa's thrust is towards the evidence presently uncovered POINTS to the princes being alive after the time that More at al say they were killed. As a member of the Richard III Society, and recipient of the quarterly bulletins, I can tell you that there is more to be revealed in that direction.

3. As I have said before, Nick, I am not into hypotheses. I am not going to write paragraphs/chapters on 'perhaps this', 'perhaps that', and 'what if'.

4. Nick, the TNA reports that you posted are interesting with regard to the day-to-day business of the unit. Enjoyed reading them. Interesting to read of the transfer of aircraft between Staffeln. Couple of interesting photos in the forthcoming book show that with regard to ZG 26.

Nick, for those not involved in the back-and-forth of posting recently, our cut-and-thrust posts and replies might be of some interest to them. Defending our own corner, and learning little bits at a time. Good stuff, Nick.

Now get yerself to Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum on Sat 9th or Sun 10th August (I'll be there both days giving short talks), and we can have a good old chat, and I'll stand you a meal and a drink at the Jackdaw! Can't say fairer than that!

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick,

1. I posted 'bollocks' to what you had posted. NOT that life was bollocks.

I'd argue that that's where your line of argument points!

Originally Posted by John Vasco

2. You said 'confirmation bias', not me. I pointed something out that was, 100%. Now you deflect. Richard had scoliosis, no one is denying that.

I was referring to Langley's insistence, in the absence of any evidence, that R III's scoliosis was propaganda. It would (as per my previous arguments here) have been entirely legitimate in historical terms to point to the Tudors' interest in denigrating the man they usurped and to argue that this cast doubt on anything they said about him. But equally, as she didn't acknowledge on camera, they had an interest in playing up any real qualities that suited them. The exhumation provided evidence and (to my eyes) she appeared crestfallen.

Originally Posted by John Vasco

3. As I have said before, Nick, I am not into hypotheses. I am not going to write paragraphs/chapters on 'perhaps this', 'perhaps that', and 'what if'.

Me neither, but did you ever write an introduction or conclusion? Did you ever write anything about where the evidence points? Would you mention what seem to be missed opportunities? You contributed to Stephen Bungay's book, I think you said. He offered analysis of the Battle (excellent in my view) but should he not have done so?

Originally Posted by John Vasco

4. Nick, the TNA reports that you posted are interesting with regard to the day-to-day business of the unit. Enjoyed reading them. Interesting to read of the transfer of aircraft between Staffeln. Couple of interesting photos in the forthcoming book show that with regard to ZG 26.

Three or four full days of uninterrupted snapping and page-turning and the BoB ULTRA could be yours (followed by God knows how long to actually read it and extract the bits that appear useful).

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Nick, for those not involved in the back-and-forth of posting recently, our cut-and-thrust posts and replies might be of some interest to them. Defending our own corner, and learning little bits at a time. Good stuff, Nick.

Kind of you but to be honest I'd have been happier keeping this stuff churning around in my head while I got on with writing up some research, too many uncompleted projects on the go …

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Now get yerself to Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum on Sat 9th or Sun 10th August (I'll be there both days giving short talks), and we can have a good old chat, and I'll stand you a meal and a drink at the Jackdaw! Can't say fairer than that!

Nice idea and thanks for the offer but can't make it I'm afraid. Have this instead:

CX/JQ/312
16/9/40 D/0350/16/9/40
18. Source saw a document, addressed to Luftflotte 3, in which Chief Engineer of Luftflotte 2 referred in great detail to trouble experienced with Me 110 aircraft, type Do. (cf. CX/JQ/231).
These aircraft are frequently damaged in the fuselage, near the dinghy stowage, at spar 18, due apparently to ice-formation. This is stated to come not only from the dinghy stowage, but also from the tail-wheel support and loading on Spar 18.
A galaxy of senior engineer officers from Luftflotte 2, as well as Hauptmann Lutz of Erprobungsruppe 210, had been conferring, writing and telephoning about this trouble, and it has been agreed with Gruppe 210 that aircraft so damaged would be flown back by Gruppe 210 to Messerschmitt’s at Augsburg for the necessary repairs and strengthening. Luftzeug Z was requested to instruct the firm, and furthermore, it would be necessary to determine the measures for the strengthening of other Do. type (Me 110) aircraft.

[John Vasco]

Nick:

'...You contributed to Stephen Bungay's book, I think you said. He offered analysis of the Battle (excellent in my view) but should he not have done so?...' He spent a day with me going through all of my files and was able to extract for his own use anything that he wished. That's all. Again, don't try to hang a 'should he' around my neck. Go ask him...

[John Vasco]

nick:

'...I was referring to Langley's insistence, in the absence of any evidence, that R III's scoliosis was propaganda. It would (as per my previous arguments here) have been entirely legitimate in historical terms to point to the Tudors' interest in denigrating the man they usurped and to argue that this cast doubt on anything they said about him. But equally, as she didn't acknowledge on camera, they had an interest in playing up any real qualities that suited them. The exhumation provided evidence and (to my eyes) she appeared crestfallen...'

Nick, go read up fully on the history of RIII. He has been denigrated for centuries as a result of Tudor propaganda. It wasn't a 'hunchback' as has been portrayed, but scoliosis. RIII fought at Bosworth and killed Brandon, close to the Tudor usurper. Whatever his infirmity, he rode into battle and engaged in combat. Go check it out. If you have a problem with any particular matter re Philippa Langley's presentations, go ask her!

[John Vasco]

Nick.

'...Did you ever write anything about where the evidence points? Would you mention what seem to be missed opportunities...' I'm not going to read through every single sentence in every book that I wrote/co-wrote to answer these two sentences. Suggest you do so to answer it...