Battle of Britain - Interesting Investigation
Discussion
Last night, the History Channel aired a documentary concerning the BoB. Some investigators from London City College(is that correct?)attempted to show how it was not the tactics or the Spitfire that won the historic battle.
1)Aircraft:
Three test were give through simulators and actual aircraft. Dive, turn and climb. The Spitfire had a tighter turning radius. The M-109 climbed faster. The M-109 dove quicker because it had fuel injection, the Spitfire did not; this required the SF to "roll" into a dive, thus, costing it three precious seconds. The London Investigators concluded that, of the planes themselves, the M-109 was superior.
2) Tactics:
The British formation was one that did not allow planes to look after one another(old RAF pilot was on to affirm this). The German "four finger" formation allowed better teamwork and is still used by major airforces today.
3) Application:
The German Stuka dive bombers wreaked havoc on the continent but were easily shot down by the RAF. This is attributed to the fact that Stukas were designed as tactical aircraft supporting ground troops(as was on the continent battles). In Britain, they were alone, without ground troop assistance, thus, wrong for the job.
4) E-Pin levees:
Brilliant in its simpicity and practicality! As explosions wrecked planes sitting in a row, the simple burms between the aircraft contained enough of the aerial bomb in the E-Pin it landed in to spare the next aircraft. Again, simple but brilliant.
5) Radar:
The Germans, thinking the main radar "guts" would be underground, stopped attacking the towers and stations, a fatal mistake for them.
6) Observation Corps:
These well trained and well-equiped "watchers" gathered invaluable intel on incoming aircraft. The demonstration of their equipment was facinating.
7) Boufer(sp?) Machine Guns:
The gun implacements were very well placed. It is believed, contrary to most text, that Britain began planning for such a battle in the 1920s. The well thought out gun placements were part of this planning.
8) Fighter Command:
The fighter command group structure was so efficient that intel dechiphering and timely issuance of instructions were superbly managed.
This evidence attempts to show that while the M-109 appeared to be the better plane, thus debunking the belief that the Spitfire alone won the battle, there was so much more involved in winning the Battle of Britain that involved many more British than just pilots and planes. This in no way diminishes the unmatchable courage of the young RAF heroes, but instead adds countless more British Citizens to the list of those credited to winning the history-making battle.
Please do not take this as a put-down; on the contrary, it makes me see the broader effort all Brits played in the battle. Impressive.
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Wednesday 23 November 02:52
1)Aircraft:
Three test were give through simulators and actual aircraft. Dive, turn and climb. The Spitfire had a tighter turning radius. The M-109 climbed faster. The M-109 dove quicker because it had fuel injection, the Spitfire did not; this required the SF to "roll" into a dive, thus, costing it three precious seconds. The London Investigators concluded that, of the planes themselves, the M-109 was superior.
2) Tactics:
The British formation was one that did not allow planes to look after one another(old RAF pilot was on to affirm this). The German "four finger" formation allowed better teamwork and is still used by major airforces today.
3) Application:
The German Stuka dive bombers wreaked havoc on the continent but were easily shot down by the RAF. This is attributed to the fact that Stukas were designed as tactical aircraft supporting ground troops(as was on the continent battles). In Britain, they were alone, without ground troop assistance, thus, wrong for the job.
4) E-Pin levees:
Brilliant in its simpicity and practicality! As explosions wrecked planes sitting in a row, the simple burms between the aircraft contained enough of the aerial bomb in the E-Pin it landed in to spare the next aircraft. Again, simple but brilliant.
5) Radar:
The Germans, thinking the main radar "guts" would be underground, stopped attacking the towers and stations, a fatal mistake for them.
6) Observation Corps:
These well trained and well-equiped "watchers" gathered invaluable intel on incoming aircraft. The demonstration of their equipment was facinating.
7) Boufer(sp?) Machine Guns:
The gun implacements were very well placed. It is believed, contrary to most text, that Britain began planning for such a battle in the 1920s. The well thought out gun placements were part of this planning.
8) Fighter Command:
The fighter command group structure was so efficient that intel dechiphering and timely issuance of instructions were superbly managed.
This evidence attempts to show that while the M-109 appeared to be the better plane, thus debunking the belief that the Spitfire alone won the battle, there was so much more involved in winning the Battle of Britain that involved many more British than just pilots and planes. This in no way diminishes the unmatchable courage of the young RAF heroes, but instead adds countless more British Citizens to the list of those credited to winning the history-making battle.
Please do not take this as a put-down; on the contrary, it makes me see the broader effort all Brits played in the battle. Impressive.
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Wednesday 23 November 02:52
IIRC Jimbeaux the Hawker Hurricane was resposible for three quarters of the: "kills" in WW2
The Spitfire did go through 14 MK's though.....(including with an American constant speed prop (with a viscous coupling) supercharging, something called: (Mrs ....[forget the name]'s... orriface)
to aid the fuel problem you describe...
The later Spitfires I think would outclimb the 109's...
Some info here http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Spitchro.htm
The gauling thing was that we had flown a jet aircraft before the war in the 1930's!.....
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 23 November 04:11
The Spitfire did go through 14 MK's though.....(including with an American constant speed prop (with a viscous coupling) supercharging, something called: (Mrs ....[forget the name]'s... orriface)
to aid the fuel problem you describe... The later Spitfires I think would outclimb the 109's...
Some info here http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Spitchro.htm
The gauling thing was that we had flown a jet aircraft before the war in the 1930's!.....
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 23 November 04:11
history Channel said:
1)Aircraft:
Three test were give through simulators and actual aircraft. Dive, turn and climb. The Spitfire had a tighter turning radius. The M-109 climbed faster. The M-109 dove quicker because it had fuel injection, the Spitfire did not; this required the SF to "roll" into a dive, thus, costing it three precious seconds. The London Investigators concluded that, of the planes themselves, the M-109 was superior.
I guess they didn't happen to mention that you can't bloody see out of the cockpit of an ME-109, because of all the little panes of glass, every where you look you have the cockpit glass's metal frame work in the way. A great equalizer for the Spitfire or Hurricane. A former British pilot from WWII climbed in an ME-109 on a documentary that I saw and remarked that the visibility out of the cockpit was very poor and there was no room what so ever inside.
8Pack said:
IIRC Jimbeaux the Hawker Hurricane was resposible for three quarters of the: "kills" in WW2
The Spitfire did go through 14 MK's though.....(including with an American constant speed prop (with a viscous coupling) supercharging, something called: (Mrs ....[forget the name]'s... orriface)
The later Spitfires I think would outclimb the 109's...
Some info here http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Spitchro.htm
The gauling thing was that we had flown a jet aircraft before the war in the 1930's!.....
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 23 November 04:11
Mrs Shilling.
I may be talking arse her, but when I was a kid playing PC flight sims (some pretty realistic - Falcon 3 and later 4.0, some not so, like Aces over the Pacific/Europe), I always rolled inverted before diving, as the time taken in the roll was more than made up for by the greater attitude rate change from 'pulling g' rather than 'pushing'. Simply trying a negative-g dive doesn't strike me as effective ACM. I would've thought the tighter turning capability of the Spit, and better visibility (as already mentioned) would be more of a deciding factor in a dogfight.
Do agree though, it was much more a united effort, rather than simply the Spitfire that won the BoB.
Do agree though, it was much more a united effort, rather than simply the Spitfire that won the BoB.
PatHeald said:
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with M......
Cheers
Pat
That's A Hispano-Suiza Buchon HA-1112-M1L. The irony being it has the Merlin engine!!!!
Aside from that the Spitfire MKII the Hurricane and the ME109E had about the same level of performance. The two british fighters were easier to fly but the germans had more experienced pilots. Tactically the Germans were superior but the RAF had an integrated Defence system which worked very well. When the RAF pilots figured out the "schwarm" tactic they switched to it. The flaw in the Vic formation was that inter war the vic had been perfected to a very "tight" formation totally unsuited to Air battles.
>> Edited by telecat on Wednesday 23 November 08:40
Jimbeaux, there was nothing terribly new revealed in that documentary.
The Spitfire was outnumbered by the Hurricane by a factor of 3 to 1 during the Battle of Britain period. As a result, 2/3 of ALL enemy aircraft shot down during the Battle fell to Hurricanes. The remaining 1/3 were shot down by Spitfires, other fighters and anti-aircraft fire(don't forget, the Spitfire was not the only alternative fighter to the Hurricane). Other planes which managed to bring down German and Italian aircraft during this period imcluded the Blackburn Skua, the Boulton Paul Defiant and the night fighter version of the Bristol Blenheim. The Bristol Beaufighter began to replace the Blenheim as the RAF's standard night fighter as the Battle petered out in October 1940.
The Bf-109 had some serious shortcomings too. The main one was lack of range. No matter how good the plane was, the or experienced pilot was, the 109 could not spend more than ten minutes over the south coast of England. After that, even if closing in for a kill, the pilot had to abandon the fight and high tail it back to France. In the heat of the chase, many Luftwaffe pilots cut it too fine and didn't make it back. Many 109s came down in the Channel - the lucky ones belly landing on beaches in and around Calais. The 109 also had a rather weak tail unit and most 109 pilots were reluctant to risk having to pull of steep dives for fear of the fail falling off.
For bombing raids beyond the range of the 109, the Luftwaffe used the twin engined Messerschmitt Bf-110, which proved incapable of fighting on equal terms with either the Hurricane or Spitfire.
The Hurricane was already becoming obsolete by 1940. Within two years of the Battle, most Hurricane squadrons had re-equipped, mainly with Spitfires. Hurricanes did find a new lease of life as ground attack aircraft and were used as such for the remainder of the war and performed very well in the North African campaign and the Far East. The Hurricane never went beyond a Mk II. Spitfires went on to Mk.24 and served with the RAF right up to the mid 1950s.
A number of corrections to the previous posts -
The photo of the 109 is not a 109 really, it's a post war Spanish deivative known as the Hispano 1112 Buchon (Pigeon). If you look carefully, you will notice that it is, in fact, fitted with a four bladed Rolls Royce Merlin (without fuel inmjection). These Hispanos served as the 109s in the 1969 film "Battle of Britain" which is why they were often seen in spurious Luftwaffe markings.
The pilot who remarked on TV about how poor the 109's visibility was was not a WW2 veteran. It was Squadron Leader Paul Day who, at the time, led the RAF's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. He had lots of experience flying the Flight's Hurricanes and S[pitfires but had never sat in a 109's cockpit until that moment. He thought that the space available yto the pilot was appaling and he was amazed that ANYONE could have flown and fought effectively in such conditions. That they did he thought was a huge tribute to the 109 pilots.
The "E-Pins" you are referring too are actually called "Blast Pens". Many (but not all) Fighter Command airfields had these in place at the aircraft dispersal points around the perimeter and they no doubt saved many a Spitfire and Hurricane from serious blast damage. If you ever get to the RAF Museum at Hendon you will see a recreation of a Spitfire in one of these pens. The US Army and US Navby could have done with such devices at Hickham and Wheeler Fields and the Navy's airfield at Peral Harbor on December 7, 1941.
The Hurricane did not shoot down more aircraft than the Spitfire in WW2 in RAF service. It did during the period May 1940 to about May 1941, after that, the Hurricane began to be withdrawn as a fighter and the Spitfire took over. By war's end, Spitfires had shot down many more enemy aircraft.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 23 November 08:38
The Spitfire was outnumbered by the Hurricane by a factor of 3 to 1 during the Battle of Britain period. As a result, 2/3 of ALL enemy aircraft shot down during the Battle fell to Hurricanes. The remaining 1/3 were shot down by Spitfires, other fighters and anti-aircraft fire(don't forget, the Spitfire was not the only alternative fighter to the Hurricane). Other planes which managed to bring down German and Italian aircraft during this period imcluded the Blackburn Skua, the Boulton Paul Defiant and the night fighter version of the Bristol Blenheim. The Bristol Beaufighter began to replace the Blenheim as the RAF's standard night fighter as the Battle petered out in October 1940.
The Bf-109 had some serious shortcomings too. The main one was lack of range. No matter how good the plane was, the or experienced pilot was, the 109 could not spend more than ten minutes over the south coast of England. After that, even if closing in for a kill, the pilot had to abandon the fight and high tail it back to France. In the heat of the chase, many Luftwaffe pilots cut it too fine and didn't make it back. Many 109s came down in the Channel - the lucky ones belly landing on beaches in and around Calais. The 109 also had a rather weak tail unit and most 109 pilots were reluctant to risk having to pull of steep dives for fear of the fail falling off.
For bombing raids beyond the range of the 109, the Luftwaffe used the twin engined Messerschmitt Bf-110, which proved incapable of fighting on equal terms with either the Hurricane or Spitfire.
The Hurricane was already becoming obsolete by 1940. Within two years of the Battle, most Hurricane squadrons had re-equipped, mainly with Spitfires. Hurricanes did find a new lease of life as ground attack aircraft and were used as such for the remainder of the war and performed very well in the North African campaign and the Far East. The Hurricane never went beyond a Mk II. Spitfires went on to Mk.24 and served with the RAF right up to the mid 1950s.
A number of corrections to the previous posts -
The photo of the 109 is not a 109 really, it's a post war Spanish deivative known as the Hispano 1112 Buchon (Pigeon). If you look carefully, you will notice that it is, in fact, fitted with a four bladed Rolls Royce Merlin (without fuel inmjection). These Hispanos served as the 109s in the 1969 film "Battle of Britain" which is why they were often seen in spurious Luftwaffe markings.
The pilot who remarked on TV about how poor the 109's visibility was was not a WW2 veteran. It was Squadron Leader Paul Day who, at the time, led the RAF's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. He had lots of experience flying the Flight's Hurricanes and S[pitfires but had never sat in a 109's cockpit until that moment. He thought that the space available yto the pilot was appaling and he was amazed that ANYONE could have flown and fought effectively in such conditions. That they did he thought was a huge tribute to the 109 pilots.
The "E-Pins" you are referring too are actually called "Blast Pens". Many (but not all) Fighter Command airfields had these in place at the aircraft dispersal points around the perimeter and they no doubt saved many a Spitfire and Hurricane from serious blast damage. If you ever get to the RAF Museum at Hendon you will see a recreation of a Spitfire in one of these pens. The US Army and US Navby could have done with such devices at Hickham and Wheeler Fields and the Navy's airfield at Peral Harbor on December 7, 1941.
The Hurricane did not shoot down more aircraft than the Spitfire in WW2 in RAF service. It did during the period May 1940 to about May 1941, after that, the Hurricane began to be withdrawn as a fighter and the Spitfire took over. By war's end, Spitfires had shot down many more enemy aircraft.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 23 November 08:38
gopher said:
The Spitfire did not have a huge impact on the battle anyway. Hurricans shot down more enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain, they were very rugged and there was more of them. They would have been better using that for analysis for a truer picture.
Cheers
Paul
This is totally correct and not at all contentious as it has always been accepted thus. It was really the Hurricane that won the BoB, but of course the Spitfire was the sexier plane ad it did a great job in terms of morale (boost for the British people and negative for the Luftwaffe). Goering added to the legend when he asked one of his senior staff "What do you need to win the air battle?" and the reply was "A squadron of Spitfires" IIRC.
Early Spitfires were temperamental, the Hurricane was very reliable and could take real punishment. It was simple to repair and turn around times were small. The SPit was much more sophisticated.
The Spitfire evolved, through many updates, into possibly the most effective British fighter. By the end of the war the Spit was developing more than twice the power of the early marks and had phenomenal manouvarability and power to weight ratio. Of course the P51 Mustang was also highly effective, having great range as it was designed to be a long range escort to the bombers.
Arguably the most complete figher of WW2 in terms of capabilities was the German Focke-Wulf 190. It's development continued throughout the war and although often overshadowed by the more numerous Me109 was actually far superior.
All IIRC without googling.
The Fw-190 in all its variants was definiely the best German fighter of the war - prticularly the liquid cooled "D" Dora version and the final derviative, the Ta-152.
I wouldn't say that the Spitfire was temperamental. After all, its engine, armament and "systems" were virtually identical to the Hurricane. Its main peoblem was the inherent design of its constructiom. The Hurricane was essentially a panelled space frame whereas the Spitfire was a stressed monocoque. Fitter and riggers found the Hurricane much easier to repair than the Spitfire. However, the 109 was built much the same as the Spitfire and indeed, virtually all fighters of WW2 were aluminium monocoque. The Hurricane was quite a conservative design. Most of the methods used in its construction were essentially based on what Hawkers had used when building their previous bi-plane fighter, the Fury. In its early design stages, the Hurrican was actually referred to by Hawkers as the "Fury Monoplane Project".
I wouldn't say that the Spitfire was temperamental. After all, its engine, armament and "systems" were virtually identical to the Hurricane. Its main peoblem was the inherent design of its constructiom. The Hurricane was essentially a panelled space frame whereas the Spitfire was a stressed monocoque. Fitter and riggers found the Hurricane much easier to repair than the Spitfire. However, the 109 was built much the same as the Spitfire and indeed, virtually all fighters of WW2 were aluminium monocoque. The Hurricane was quite a conservative design. Most of the methods used in its construction were essentially based on what Hawkers had used when building their previous bi-plane fighter, the Fury. In its early design stages, the Hurrican was actually referred to by Hawkers as the "Fury Monoplane Project".
Sorry, I have to say this - "would HAVE" 
As I stated earlier, the 109s had a poor range. In effect, they were being used for a task that they hadn't really been designed for - long range bomber escort. That job should have been carried out by the Bf-110 but it proved too vulnerable to single engined opponents and they actually needed to be escorted by 109s!
Even the German bombers were not really up to the job asked of them. They were all twin engined, under gunned, short on lange and carried inadequate protective armour plating. One of the Luftwaffe's greatest shortcomings was their lack of a decent and numerous four engined strategic bomber.
As I stated earlier, the 109s had a poor range. In effect, they were being used for a task that they hadn't really been designed for - long range bomber escort. That job should have been carried out by the Bf-110 but it proved too vulnerable to single engined opponents and they actually needed to be escorted by 109s!
Even the German bombers were not really up to the job asked of them. They were all twin engined, under gunned, short on lange and carried inadequate protective armour plating. One of the Luftwaffe's greatest shortcomings was their lack of a decent and numerous four engined strategic bomber.
its nice to see that the program credits the support staff as well.
i get a bit miffed when you get programs about the battle of britain when all you here about is the pilots, not that i want to belittle their sacrifices, or what they achieved, but the couldn't have done it without the guys fixing their planes, or the flight directors, directing them to the enemy , or a whole host of other people supporting them on the ground.
i get a bit miffed when you get programs about the battle of britain when all you here about is the pilots, not that i want to belittle their sacrifices, or what they achieved, but the couldn't have done it without the guys fixing their planes, or the flight directors, directing them to the enemy , or a whole host of other people supporting them on the ground.
The Battle of Briatin was won by the "organisational structure" of Fighter Command and the ineptness of the Luftwaffe.
It was the ability of Fighter Command to co-ordinate its fighter force effectively that allowed it to counter the German attacks time and time again.
Germany was also let down dreadfully by very poor intelligence. They underestimated totally the importance of radar to the operation of Fighter Command and they also underestimated or were not properly aware of the Sector Controller system used by the RAF. On the rare occassion where they actually knocked out a Sector Controller station, they were able to carry out much more devastating raids. They also did not always know which airfields were fighter airfields. On quite a few occasions, Bomber or Coastal Command airfields were heavilly bombed - all to very little purpose.
Finally, the Germans OVERESTIMATED the damage they had done to Fighter Command far too early in the Battle. They assumed Fighter Command had been rendered ineffective and switched their attacks from the airfields to the cities giving Fighter Command the breathing space it desperately needed.
In the end, Germany's heart was not really set on invading Britain. Hitler had always hoped that Britain would "see sense" and broker some sort of non-agression pact with Germany. Hitler's main military and terretorial objectives had always been in the East. Stupidly, he abandoned the "Battle of Britain" without the job being completed and turned his attention on Russia.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 23 November 10:27
It was the ability of Fighter Command to co-ordinate its fighter force effectively that allowed it to counter the German attacks time and time again.
Germany was also let down dreadfully by very poor intelligence. They underestimated totally the importance of radar to the operation of Fighter Command and they also underestimated or were not properly aware of the Sector Controller system used by the RAF. On the rare occassion where they actually knocked out a Sector Controller station, they were able to carry out much more devastating raids. They also did not always know which airfields were fighter airfields. On quite a few occasions, Bomber or Coastal Command airfields were heavilly bombed - all to very little purpose.
Finally, the Germans OVERESTIMATED the damage they had done to Fighter Command far too early in the Battle. They assumed Fighter Command had been rendered ineffective and switched their attacks from the airfields to the cities giving Fighter Command the breathing space it desperately needed.
In the end, Germany's heart was not really set on invading Britain. Hitler had always hoped that Britain would "see sense" and broker some sort of non-agression pact with Germany. Hitler's main military and terretorial objectives had always been in the East. Stupidly, he abandoned the "Battle of Britain" without the job being completed and turned his attention on Russia.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 23 November 10:27
Eric Mc said:
The Fw-190 in all its variants was definiely the best German fighter of the war - prticularly the liquid cooled "D" Dora version and the final derviative, the Ta-152.
I had always wondered why the FW190 didn't have much overall impact ..... but while at the Imperial War Museum last year ... saw a display which showed just how few were actually made ,( and mainly piloted by young inexperienced pilots )... insignificant in comparison to the number of P51's. The one on display is the earlier (A?) variant , not the Dora.
Also - one point not mentioned re ME109's - they had nose mounted cannon,and the seats were better shaped to prevent high-G blackout .- The Mk1 Spits and Hurricanes only had 0.303's which were pretty feeble - should have been fitted with 20mm's at the start.
The reason the 109 could negtive G and get away from spitfires and hurricanes was because it had fuel injection and not carburettors like the british aircraft, which would cut out if pulling negative g, a handy escape for a 109 pilot.
Also 109 pilots liked the cramped cockpit, often describing american aircraft in particular as being too large in the cockpit and not being able to reach anything. The early hurricane also had just as poor visibility from its framed cockpit. One thing the 109 had was cannons, much more effective at shooting things down the puny .303 machine guns, which were especially hopeless against bombers.
British tactics were hapahzard and varied from squadron to squadron with many copying the german tactics fairly soon.
The British and Germans both developed jets at almost the same time (1936) The British were hampered a lot in that regard because it wasn't taken seriously, their team had only 25 people compared to the German research which had a lot more backing.
The real decider was that any German pilots bailing out would be out of action, British pilots bailing out could be back in the air the same day. In fact while the British were worried about their reserves dwindling, they didn't realise that the Germans had already gone through all of theirs! The Germans had already thrown everything they had into the battle. The British vastly overestimated the size and production capacity of the Germans and the Germans under estimated the same for the British. The British were winning from the start, they were increasing in strength until Sept/August when the Germans were alrady losing strength from the start, which then sharply dropped in Sept/August. I doubt whether the Germans could have ever puleld off an invasion of Britian, if you think about it, it was one of their dumbest ideas, I guess they just hoped they might give up like France. Their Uboat attacks probably did more to hurt the British than their bombing. Made a good propaganda event for the allies though
Also 109 pilots liked the cramped cockpit, often describing american aircraft in particular as being too large in the cockpit and not being able to reach anything. The early hurricane also had just as poor visibility from its framed cockpit. One thing the 109 had was cannons, much more effective at shooting things down the puny .303 machine guns, which were especially hopeless against bombers.
British tactics were hapahzard and varied from squadron to squadron with many copying the german tactics fairly soon.
The British and Germans both developed jets at almost the same time (1936) The British were hampered a lot in that regard because it wasn't taken seriously, their team had only 25 people compared to the German research which had a lot more backing.
The real decider was that any German pilots bailing out would be out of action, British pilots bailing out could be back in the air the same day. In fact while the British were worried about their reserves dwindling, they didn't realise that the Germans had already gone through all of theirs! The Germans had already thrown everything they had into the battle. The British vastly overestimated the size and production capacity of the Germans and the Germans under estimated the same for the British. The British were winning from the start, they were increasing in strength until Sept/August when the Germans were alrady losing strength from the start, which then sharply dropped in Sept/August. I doubt whether the Germans could have ever puleld off an invasion of Britian, if you think about it, it was one of their dumbest ideas, I guess they just hoped they might give up like France. Their Uboat attacks probably did more to hurt the British than their bombing. Made a good propaganda event for the allies though
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff