For example, if I post some source material from which it clearly appears that the gunners of certain batteries were not well trained at a certain point in time, it is QUITE unnecessary for you to keep insisting, in this near-hysterical fashion, that they were NOT!!! well!!! trained!!!
It is however worth pointing out what you
failed to do - that if they were NOT!!! well!!! trained!!! a month outside the timeframe of this thread....they would have been
worse a month earlier, inside the timeframe of this thread.
Regarding Lympne, on the evening of Aug. 12 attack : "Most of the personnel dived for cover and gun crews (meaning presumably the RAF machine gunners) were taken by surprise, leaving only the two Hispanos to spray their small shells at the raiders.“
Assuming the abovementioned recommendation of the Inspector-General to install four more was heeded, that would have brought the total up to six by September, which seems a bit above average.
That's an assumption that you cannot make unless you know the
total RAF AA defence as of August 12th....and whether it was at that point in time
below average.
In regard to the Hispano cannons themselves - I take it you still haven't read Kingsley Oliver? Lewis/Vickers MGS were what they
had, cannon were
preferred. But Bofors weren't available to the RAF...so they used what they had access to - the Hispanos. Why - with Hispanos in single-mount ground mounts coming off the production line for RAF ground gunners' use, would he suggest anything other than cannon?
Regarding Lympne, on the evening of Aug. 12 attack : "Most of the personnel dived for cover and gun crews (meaning presumably the RAF machine gunners) were taken by surprise, leaving only the two Hispanos to spray their small shells at the raiders.“
You're forgetting the Army AA at RAF Lympne.
I certainly refuse to be ordered around and told what I should or should not post up, least of all by someone who keeps messing up this thread while contributing nothing, or next to nothing, of any value. If I want to give a summary, for easier consultation and comparison, that's my decision. If you don't like or trust my summaries, you're PERFECTLY free to go and consult the original at Kew, or order copies.
If you have relevant specifically-detailed material, make us aware of it but refuse to post it up - it leaves suspect any interpretations or assumptions made by you based on
lesser material. As in - "is he
choosing not to post it up because it might actually contradict what he's saying?"
It may make for "easier" consultation and comparison" for
you, but this is a history forum, and this is one of the research sections of that forum. Accuracy is greatly preferred here to "easy".
For my part, I have repeatedly requested you to STOP quoting everything I write - sometimes three times over - interspersed with your own comments, which in 98% of cases contain no new information or insights whatsoever.
If they require or deserve comment - they'll
get comment. Don't ever think otherwise.
Readers of this thread - those that have not yet been driven away in disgust, that is - are intelligent enough to reach such conclusions for themselves without your "help".
Well -
you missed the implications of the date(s) of the calibration exercises being outside the time frame of the thread, or the implications for accuracy before that - especially when firing on invasion beaches etc.
alongside defenders...and the implication that if the gunners were bad in October they couldn't help but be worse in September.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
