A national disgrace

[Hagar]

I was wondering, does any other country in the world treat its heroes in the same way as Britain? Two classic examples are the way the men most responsible for victory in the Battle of Britain were sacked in virtual disgrace at what should have been their finest hour.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding

Dowding has been given the credit for the victory in September 1940 - along with the "few". For this he was awarded the Knight Grand Cross. However, his career did not end in the glory many feel it should have done. Air Chief Marshall Portal, the chief of air staff, did not agree that Dowding had used the right tactics and in November 1941, the man who had masterminded the victory that was the Battle of Britain was forced to retire from the position as head of Fighter Command. Age was not an issue as Dowding was only 59. Dowding was replaced as head of Fighter Command by one of his chief critics - Air Vice Marshall Douglas.

Dowding was given 'special duties' to do in America involving aircraft production. However, he retired from the Royal Air Force in July 1942 and was given a baronetcy in 1943.

Dowding died on February 15th, 1970.

[quote]Air Vice Marshal Sir Keith Park

"If any one man won the Battle of Britain, he did. I do not believe it is realized how much that one man, with his leadership, his calm judgement and his skill, did to save, not only this country, but the world."
Lord Tedder - Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force February 1947
===================================
It has been stated, that, Dowding controlled the Battle of Britain from day to day, while Keith Park controlled it hour by hour. Park organized and managed his squadrons and men brilliantly, he was respected and admired by many, yet as with all commanders one has to be open for criticism. Most of this was due to the fact that he fought the battle in a defensive manner when it was thought that he should give greater consideration to taking the fight to the Germans in an offensive manner.

[ozzy72]

Alas Hagar Britain is probably the worst offender for this
Somebody once observed (I think it was David Lloyd-Owen) that the only people who treat their dead worse than the British are the Japanese.
He made this after finding out that the widows of his men were charged 10 shillings for the blanket their husband was buried in in the western desert
Disgraceful isn't the word, and we're no better today, look at the Gulf War Syndrome case at the moment
Sometimes I'm embarressed to be British.

Ozzy

[C]

Recently (trying to) read the book " The Right of the Line" enlightened me on this subject as far a Dowding was concerned. From what I remember reading, Dowding was supposed to retire before the Battle of Britain, sometime in 1939 or 1940, but was asked to delay his retirement two or more times before he eventually left. The quote below I found on rafweb.org, in the biographies of Air Officers. The site also mentions the biggest conflict of the BoB - between Park and Leigh-Mallory...

From 1938 Dowding was advised of five separate retirement dates, but  each one was rescinded for various reasons, therefore, his replacement in November 1940 as AOC in C Fighter Command, when flush with success in the Battle of Britain was seen as a snub by many, although it had in fact been planned.

I also seem to remember from previous readings that Sholto Douglas replaced Dowding, and then replaced Park with Leigh Mallory (who had commanded 12 Grp and its "Big Wing" in the BoB, and who eventually replaced Douglas as AOC Fighter Command in 1942)

I think it's apt however, that Dowding became Lord Dowding of Bentley Priory.

Also I agree that these two men never did and probably never will get the credit they deserve

Charlie

[Hagar]

There are naturally various accounts of events. The date even varies between November 1940 & November 1941. I don't know which is correct but I suspect the former. This account is by Robert Boothby (later Lord Boothby) from his book "Recollections of a Rebel" (1978 ). If this is true it seems the knives were out.

The treatment of the Commander-in-Chief Fighter Command, Dowding, after he had won the most critical battle for this country since Drake, was so atrocious that it hardly bears description. He may well have made mistakes. His two principal Group Commanders, Keith Park and Leigh-Mallory, disagreed about tactics; and it has been argued that he should have knocked their heads together, and forced them to conform to his own views, or go. Instead he let them both fight in the way they wished. But all criticism fades before the victory achieved under his supreme command. The story that immediately after the battle he was sacked over the telephone by the Secretary of State, Sir Archibald Sinclair, is untrue. That would have been entirely out of character. On the contrary, Sinclair sent for Dowding to offer him his personal congratulations. This, however, did not prevent Dowding's headquarters staff from being ordered to vacate their offices within forty-eight hours, or the immediate dismissal of Dowding himself.

After that an enquiry was set up by the Air Ministry, to which Dowding and Keith Park were summoned. There they found themselves confronted by an array of Air Marshals, which included Leigh-Mallory. It was more like a court-martial than an enquiry. Dowding as was his custom, said nothing. He just disappeared. No one now maintains that he should not have been relieved of his command after the appalling strain to which he had been subjected, or that Sholto Douglas was not his obvious successor. What is almost inconceivable is that he was never made a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. Some years later he was given a peerage; but by then he had been forgotten.

[FLYING_TRUCKER]

Canada in no better.

Hell we send our people off to keep the peace without the proper equipment.

Members of Parliament should have their salaries cut until the military is back to strength and properly trained and equipped.

Some day the people will learn you can not put a budget on FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY.

It's sad when the prisoners in Federal and Provincial Institutions are better treated than the Military or Our Senior Citizens.

Cheers..Happy Landings...Doug

[C]

Members of Parliament should have their salaries cut until the military is back to strength and properly trained and equipped.

Yep, I quite agree. Unfortunately on this side of the Atlantic, being an MP is about the only job in which one can vote for an increase in your own salary!

Going back to the original point of this article, I think the RAF was still very backward at the top, and many high ranking Air Officers were of the view that the RAF was an offensive weapon, and that defense was not its job. Before the war started there was talk of a "decisive" strike on the Ruhr by Bomber Command (either someone had a vivid imagination or a sense of humour), which would cripple German industry. Of course, within weeks of the war starting, it was realised that casualties would be over 50%, and the raid had no chance of suceeding, and would never be able to be mounted again as Bomber Command would be decimated...

That shows the RAF mentality at the end of the 1930s and beginning of the 40s...

Charlie

[Hagar]

From what I've read over many years I've come to the conclusion that the whole thing stemmed from petty jealousy on the part of Trafford Leigh-Mallory. He was in charge of 12 Group, north of the Thames, which was originally thought would be in the front line if an attack was mounted on Britain. Nobody had forseen the rapid German advance into countries on the northern coast of Europe. This meant that Luftwaffe aircraft based in France were much closer & came into the area of 11 Group under the direct command of Keith Park. These two commanders obviously disliked each other & disagreed on tactics. Park complained that 12 Group should have done more to protect the air bases in his area instead of going off hunting for German planes to shoot down.
Leigh-Mallory seized on the Big Wing theory when it was proposed to him by Douglas Bader & others. It was his chance to bring attention back to himself & strike a blow against Park. I find the idea of personal gain & all this pettiness abhorrent, especially when the whole future of the country was at stake.

Park disagreed with the whole idea as he said, quite rightly as it turned out, that it would take far too long to assemble the wing. This meant that enemy bombers could not be attacked until after they had dropped their bombs & were on their way home. It also shortened the effective range of the fighters & by attacking in large numbers they would get in each other's way. By a strange twist of fate, the first time the Big Wing was tried it was a success. This was mainly because the Luftwaffe had been delayed for 1 hour on this particular day, giving the wing time to assemble. The date was 15th September 1940, generally considered the turning point of the BoB. Leigh-Mallory had proved his point which must have influenced Churchill & other leaders. I think this more than any other event sealed the eventual fate of Dowding & Park. With all due respect to Douglas Bader & its other proponents I've always thought this Big Wing theory was flawed. It's possible it would work later when the immediate threat was over.

The Hurricane & Spitfire were both short-range interceptors designed primarily for defence. Park's method of scrambling individual squadrons & taking advantage of Radar to direct them onto specific targets was more flexible & the most effective way of using the resources at his disposal. IMHO
By attacking a large force in small numbers almost any aircraft crossing their sights would be a valid target.

Leigh-Mallory never seemed a suitable choice for a senior command position to me. He was forced to resign as commander of the Allied Expeditionary Air Forces before D-Day after coming into conflict with Arthur Harris & Carl Spaatz. His resignation was at the insistence of General Eisenhower himself. Leigh-Mallory was then appointed Commander in Chief of Southeast Asia & killed on his way to Burma when the aircraft he was travelling in crashed on 14th November, 1944.

PS. Another objection to the Big Wing is the large formations involved. Many of the RAF reserve squadrons were still using the outdated squadron formation tactics. This involved more effort on the part of every pilot except the leader & they were often more concerned about keeping a neat formation & colliding with other aircraft than looking out for the enemy. When these squadrons were sent into action the job of Tail-end Charlie, who was supposed to weave around behind the squadron to protect their blind spot, often fell to the most junior pilots. These easily got lost & were sometimes shot down before they saw the enemy. The Luftwaffe pilots had discovered in Spain that these tactics did not work & developed the Schwarm formation of 4 aircraft that could be easily split in to 2 as a Rotte (leader & wingman) when in action. The RAF squadrons involved from the start had soon adopted this idea themselves but it was unofficial & not passed on to the others.

[Wing Nut]

Britain is not the only country to make mistakes.  Everyone knows about Billy Mitchell being court-martialed because of his stance on aerial bombing.

One of the darkest moments for the US Navy involved Captain Charles McVay of the Battleship USS Indianolpolis.  You may be familiar with the story.  The Indianapolis had delivered parts for the Atomic Bomb to the island of Tinian where it was to be assembled and taken to Japan.  After a record setting run, the ship completed her mission and set sail for Guam (I think).  She was torpedoed by a Japanese sub and sank within minutes.  Over 900 men went into the water.  Because of an oversight by the Navy, the ship wasn't reported missing for several days.  

Only the fact that a crewmember on a recon plane looked out a window to check a broken antenna saved anyone at all.  He saw an oil slick, the plane flew down to check it out and saw men in the water.  So, out of over 900 men who went into the water alive, only 316 were rescued.  Most succumbed to thirst or were eaten by sharks.  Some simply could not endure the agonay and committed suicide, some died of wounds recieved during the sinking.

The Navy, looking for a scapegoat, court-martialed McVay.  Because he was in enemy waters, the standard practice was for the ship to Zig-Zag to make it more difficult for subs to attack them.  Since they were in a relatively low threat area, McVay had ordered the helm to Zig-Zag at discretion and gone below to bed.

The navy even went through the unprecendented act of bringing the commander of the japanese sub to the US to testify against McVay.  The Japanese commander testified that because of conditions (there was some debate about the moon and visibility) it would have made no difference whatsoever if the ship had been zig-zagging, and he would have still hit the ship.  Every member of the surving crew, to the man, stood behind McVay, and almost every witness corroborated that zig-zagging would not have made a difference

So, Captain McVay, a 3rd Generation Navy officer with a spotless record, was found guilty and forced to retire.  In 1973, McVay walked out on to the front lawn of his home, put a gun to his head and committed suicide.  It was not until the late 90's when a high school student doing research on the project proved McVay's innocence and went to Washington to lobby for his name to be restored, that the US government rescinded the court martial and reinstated McVay's rank.

[Polynomial]

a lot of countries do not respect war veterens properly.  Ever heard of Gordon Olive?  Australian pilot during the Second World War (he actually flew with the RAF not the RAAF).  Well he aquired the rank of Wing Commander in Britain and when he transferred back to Australia and the RAAF during the latter parts of WW2 they dropped his rank to SQNLDR.  That is an utter disgrace as is the non-recognition of the Vietnam War veterens.

[ATI_7500]

Hell we send our people off to keep the peace without the proper equipment.

Tell me something that I don't know,because we have the same situation here in Germany.
CH-53s,MG3s (aka MG42),G3s and C-160s,along with thousands of other things from the 1960s  speak a clear language.

Members of Parliament should have their salaries cut until the military is back to strength and properly trained and equipped.

Disagreed. I'm more for a small group of specialists than for a "people's army",like in China or Northern Korea. One hundred thousand men with high-tech things could do better than five hundred thousand men with all kinds of old arms.
But why do you need a big army anyways,when all countries around you are your allies and friends?

[Woodlouse2002]

Disagreed. I'm more for a small group of specialists than for a "people's army",like in China or Northern Korea. One hundred thousand men with high-tech things could do better than five hundred thousand men with all kinds of old arms.

I assume that this is why America lost in Vietnam...
And why Nazi germany failed to invade russia...
And why we lost the Battle of Rorke's drift.

However hightech an army might be, if they face a dedicated force of superior numbers with inferior equipment, numbers will always win.

[Felix/FFDS]

I assume that this is why America lost in Vietnam...
And why Nazi germany failed to invade russia...
And why we lost the Battle of Rorke's drift.

However hightech an army might be, if they face a dedicated force of superior numbers with inferior equipment, numbers will always win.

Point of Information - I would maintain that Vietnam was lost by the Americans "politically", rather than miliitarily.  After the American withdrawal, the military invasion of South Vietnam by the Regular Army of North Vietnam was conducted by the largest concentration of regular military forces since the Koren War.

I would posit the Rorke's Drift was an English victory, in that most defenders survived and the attacking Zulus withdrew.  However, near Rorke's Drift, a terrible loss on an English unit was wrought by the Zulus, at isandhlwana, a few days earlier.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/isandhlwan ... hlwana.htm

[ATI_7500]

And why Nazi germany failed to invade russia...

Badly planned,much too early,one of too many goals.
Not caused by a numerical inferior army.

[Felix/FFDS]

Badly planned,much too early,one of too many goals.
Not caused by a numerical inferior army.

This is definitely fodder for a new topic - it can be argued that the Germans were facing a numerically superior (although definitely lower tech) enemy at the time of the invasion.  One of the main problems is that I believe that even they miscalculated just how many men the Russians could put into the field, even after the thousands they had killed/captured/routed.

[Woodlouse2002]

Badly planned,much too early,one of too many goals.
Not caused by a numerical inferior army.

I disagree. Germany had some of the best tactical geniuses in the world in WWII. If the loss in Russia had anything to go by it was that the Russians could afford to lose huge amounts of men.

In the battle of Kursk the Russians had over 300,000 casualties. The Germans had fewer than 90,000. During the capturing of Berlin the Russians again had over 300,000 casualties. The Germans again lost less than 100,000. In these two battles alone the Russians losses are comparable to British and American losses for the entire war.

Basically, numbers will always win against technology.