Silent. Please don't apologise on my account.

It takes a lot to offend me but I can see how others might take your comment the wrong way. As I mentioned, I've read this book but as I don't recall anything about it maybe it was not one of Len Deighton's better efforts. I have a pretty good memory for books that have impressed me over the years, some of which I might have read many years ago, long before you were born. Perhaps Will read it more recently. I have no idea why he found it particularly dark & depressing but considering the subject of the novel I suggest that doesn't take a lot of imagination.

Well, it'd be a good idea, but I can't find it anywhere, at least not locally.

So, the discussion continues...

Quote:


Nope, for anyone who doesn't want to be taken out and shot for disagreeing with the political leadership.  The subject of the book is that southern Britain is occupied and the SS are running the show.

The book is dark as it is a plot surrounding the use of the occult in high Nazi circles and involves betrayal, destroyed families and lives, murder and control.

Depressing because the actions of the characters ultimately have little effect on the outcome.

Other books that I give this accolade too are (in no particular order):

1984
The Stand
Anything by Sven Hassel
Most of Douglas Reeman

Please understand that my comments against Nazism in no way reflect any grudge/bad feeling/negativity towards you as a German.

It is totalitarianism that I detest, whatever it calls itself.

Will

PS I too am having a bad day.  Insomnia rules and no beer!!!

Just a few points Hyvry. I don't know where you got this information.
Quote:


The RAF was desperately short of fighter aircraft at this time but even more desperately short of pilots to fly them. The standard armament of the BoB Hurricanes & Spitfires was 8 x .303 machine guns with a comparatively short effective range. The Bf 109E had a mixed armament of MGs & cannon. I don't believe that British aircraft were significantly better or worse than their Luftwaffe counterparts.

Quote:

You're thinking of the V1 "Doodlebug" which was a cruise missile powered by a pulse-jet (ramjet) engine. They were usually brought down by cannon fire. The old myth of tipping them over with a wingtip had been done but would be highly dangerous. This involved formating on the V1 & carefully edging your own wingtip underneath the VI's wing, hoping to disturb the airflow enough to topple the gyro on the autopilot. One touch of wings & the attacking pilot was a goner. This would only be contemplated as a last desperate measure after running out of ammo.

The V2 was a rocket-powered, supersonic missile. You couldn't even see or hear it coming, let alone bring it down.The V-weapons were not used until much later in WWII. The first V1 was launched on June 13th 1944, just one week after the Allied landings at Normandy.

Quote:

Churchill had a tank named after him but did not invent it. Tanks were first used by the British Army during WWI. Generally speaking, WWII did not involve trench warfare.

Quote:

All wing mounted guns are angled inwards slightly (harmonised) so the trajectories meet at their effective range. This does not increase the range of the individual guns, in fact usually the opposite.

Quote:

Churchill saw the potential & did encourage the development of the first tank.

Quote:

They didn't. The V2 was a very effective weapon - the first ballistic missile. The only defence was to destroy them on their launching pads.

I agree about the slight upward angle which I believe was done. Theoretically the same thing could be achieved just as effectively on an aircraft by adjusting the gunsight. I'm not too sure what difference it would make at the typically short ranges of about 500 yards or less. I'll have a punt round later & see what I can find out.

Quote:


The guns on RAF fighters were harmonised to a range of 260 yards. At that range they didn't need to angle the guns up much.