familiar. Any assertion as to my supposed lack of knowledge is faulty, just like your claim above. go back and actual read what he says and not just assume it agrees with what you think, I did and in that post he states " That that book disputes everything you have ever stated" I replied that if it did, it was either wrong or out of date, etc... Since that time, I have managed to find my copy of said book and re-read it last night! Since that time, in a prior post today, I retracted my statement that the book was wrong based as it was on his claim, and then stated that you have to read the entire book, because when you do, it proves my points! I then quoted page numbers from said book. But being lazy I will not do so again. Go to that prior post and read what it states. Buy a copy of said book and read it ALL! If you do and do not come to the same conclusions as I have, I do not know what to say to convince you of your folly!

 

 

I have and I have and yet it seems to differ from what you claim, now this could be differing opinions on what it says, it could be one of us not understanding what it says or it could be one of us bullshitting, now bearing in mind that the last time I called you on the interpretation of a book you accused me of exactly the same as you are now, and on further examination it turned out that you hadn't even read the book, so excuse me for thinking that you talk crap

or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage.

the picture at that resolution shows nothing at all you need a much higher resolution )like the original photo)

This is a very wrong and specious statement! It is easy to see at any resolution that the factory roofs are still intact, something that would not be, IF that building had taken a direct hit!

this is not actually correct, but even if we assume that fact then the fact that the RAF mix was high with incendiaries then it does not even prove anything

 

 Ergo, any building with the roof intact in a picture with bomb craters scattered all around and other buildings clearly showing the missing roofs and the knocked down walls with craters inside those walls, ( By absence of linear shadows.) means that that building was not hit! See the RAF's own post war "Strategic Bomb Damage Assessment Results" report for methodology and criteria as to the results claimed!

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

 

 
   
ps those pics are from the US bomb survey not the RAF one, you have been picked up on quoting the RAF BDA but have been proven that you have never seen the documents and making wild guesses I trust the guy who first posted the set of TEN images that he claimed were from the RAF's Post War BDA report!

then post a link to that original as I dispute your claim that this was of a RAF raid

 

I searched for pictures from that report. Those two are what came up. Now since you claim they are from one source and I claim they are from another,

as the pictures are LABLED as being from the US survey that might have given you a clue

 

 why don't you prove they are as YOU state. You have disputed my analysis of those pictures, but hereby been disproven, so make your proof for us all to see and then address my assessment.

 

why when you cannot provide proof of what these pictures as supposed to show! (by the way there is a number on the picture that helps in identifying the location, but that all the help you lazy sod is getting)

Now I do understand your entire problem! You are ignorant of the vast differences in both speed, energy and SEP that exist between many WW-II fighter planes! (and if you had read the book you will notice that the lower the combat speed the bigger the excess needs to be I do not recall that single passage in that exact wording, but since it is "self evident" and agrees with the rest of my knowledge base, I will so stipulate it to be true in kind!
 

Yet for such a simple answer, no one here has stepped up to the plate and stated any kind of an answer. You have collectively dodged the question repeatedly and used a dozen different excuses to do so, ALL with out making the slightest effort to answer the Question, or even address the idea! I have tried to discuss the basic idea through several different questions, but in each case, everyone here has done everything in their power to avoid answering those simple questions. It is a basic core question as to determining the value of any single fighter plane from any period, yet no-one here will even discuss it, let alone answer it.
no its you trying to justify your opinion and has nothing to do with discussion, you are mentally incapable of discussion, you cannot imagine that you can be wrong so it is purely you trying to force your ideas on others, no one on here needs to answer your questions it is a free world and what we do is our choice, if we choose to pick you up on your errors that's our choice
I am not wrong! My ideas are correct. I am trying to argue/discuss those ideas with all here, but because they do not agree with other's pre-conceived ideas, my ideas never get discussed on the merits of the ideas therein. I get yelled down by multiple voices who have not taken the time to address any single one of those ideas until now in this thread in the last two dozen posts or so. 

The basic argument of this thread is "Which of the various WW-II fighter planes was the BEST!" There can only be one answer. There is and can only be one best of anything.
To restate my case before I run out of my allotted number..

 

In general conclusion of what is or is not in the "Common knowledge" I make the following statements based on my interpretation of what Shaw states in that book;
1. More energy is better than less.

2. More speed is better than less.

3. Lower wing loading is better than less.

4. Longer effective weapons range is better than less effective weapons range.

I figure that four items is enough for now. If you disagree, then please list your dispute with any of the above for further discussion.

 

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

In general conclusion of what is or is not in the "Common knowledge" I make the following statements based on my interpretation of what Shaw states in that book;
1. More energy is better than less.

 but what happens when you havent the energy advantage and cannot turn?

 

2. More speed is better than less.

true, but what happens when you havent that speed and cannot turn?

 

3. Lower wing loading is better than less.

this makes no sense

 

4. Longer effective weapons range is better than less effective weapons range.

again a gernalisation that skips over reality hitting power in an effective usable band if far more important than range, it doesnt matter if you can fire 3 miles if you cant hit anything over 300 yards

 

I figure that four items is enough for now. If you disagree, then please list your dispute with any of the above for further discussion

 

you make generalisations that mean nothing and think your self clever

by the way did you even bother to read the section prior to the one you quote, the one that showns how to defeat an energy fighter by a turner? I thought not

as the pictures are LABLED as being from the US survey that might have given you a clue
Those labels were not evident when I downloaded the picture's IRL

 

And thats my fault? you miss the lable that clearly contradicts your position and then spend 20 posts defending against correction!