BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[kendo65]

Hi All,

Just finished watching this fine programme - for me definitely the pick of the bunch of the BBC's BOB season.

Provocative and very well informed. As someone who knows his way around the standard story of the battle pretty well there was enough here to really keep me engrossed and a few nuggets that were genuinely new to me.

Better quality of archive footage than usual as well - some great aerial footage of 109s especially.

He also made a pretty convincing argument [starting at ~34mins] that the 109 was the best fighter in 1940 - and yes I have heard ALL the arguments before.

Viewable on BBC iPlayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00txmkk/Battle_of_Britain_The_Real_Story/
though I believe unfortunately not accessible for non-UK residents :(

Highly recommended.

[Bloblast]

Yes, surprisingly the British pilot and the commentator conclude that the Bf109e was the better fighter. British pilot argumented that 109 was superior due to the fuel injection engine and it's dominance during dogfight, it could always outdive the British fighters.

Other argument was the time of fire is 3x times more for the 109. Shown was the small .303 bullet, which was called pea shooter in comparison with the canon shells from the 109.

[KG26_Alpha]

No arguments/surprises at all just facts.

Both sides had political agendas and had to convince their citizens that they had superior machinery and men than their enemy.

If you happen to believe the propaganda your country is telling you then you will have a false uninformed opinion, the thing I find surprising is that 70 years later this seems to still be the case.

IMHO

[ATAG_Dutch]

No arguments/surprises at all just facts.
Both sides had political agendas and had to convince their citizens that they had superior machinery and men than their enemy.
If you happen to believe the propaganda your country is telling you then you will have a false uninformed opinion, the thing I find surprising is that 70 years later this seems to still be the case.
IMHO

Absolutely true.
Until this programme was broadcast there were only a privileged few, in the UK particularly, who knew the real story, free of jingoist propaganda.
Most of these people will have read 'The Most Dangerous Enemy', and not just once.
It was highly gratifying to see a programme that told the story in an objective light for a change.
The Germans had the equipment, the numbers and the pilot's personal drive, but had the worst kind of amateurish leadership, and an inadequate manufacturing and training capacity. They also made strategic and tactical mistakes.
The British had the most efficient and effective airborne defence system in the world, led by professional soldiers, who knew the value of staff rotation as opposed to 'The Warrior Ethic', and had a manufacturing and training capacity to ensure continuity.
It wasn't simply about whether the Spitfire was better than the 109, or simply whether German pilots were 'superior' to RAF pilots, but about the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect.
Hugh Dowding and Keith Park should be as lauded in the UK as Nelson and Drake.
It's a shame that politics dictated otherwise; and to those in the know, this will remain a continued embarrassment.
A very, very good broadcast.

[Sternjaeger]

He also made a pretty convincing argument [starting at ~34mins] that the 109 was the best fighter in 1940 - and yes I have heard ALL the arguments before.


Yes, surprisingly the British pilot and the commentator conclude that the Bf109e was the better fighter. British pilot argumented that 109 was superior due to the fuel injection engine and it's dominance during dogfight, it could always outdive the British fighters.


Does it really come as a surprise to you guys? The Spitfire winning the Battle of Britain is propaganda chowder, professional historians know that the Me109 was an overall superior fighter. The Battle of Britain was lost only because of the white dressed fat ba$tard (no, not Elvis..).

[Sternjaeger]

as for the show it was very good, but I though Holland was be a bit rude when he kept on interrupting the other guests..

[ATAG_Dutch]

Yes, surprisingly the British pilot and the commentator conclude that the Bf109e was the better fighter. British pilot argumented that 109 was superior due to the fuel injection engine and it's dominance during dogfight, it could always outdive the British fighters.
Other argument was the time of fire is 3x times more for the 109. Shown was the small .303 bullet, which was called pea shooter in comparison with the canon shells from the 109.

Oh, sorry, maybe it was all about the aeroplanes after all.
So why did they lose again?

[winny]

It wasn't about whether the Spitfire was better than the 109, or whether German pilots were 'superior' to RAF pilots, but about the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect.

Surley it was about all these things? To different degrees certainly, but all contributed. And loads of other little factors that just tipped the balance in the UK's favour, tactics, fatigue, morale, quality of pilots.

One thing really came across in the programe and that was just how scared some of the Germans were at the sight of Spitfires, so psychology comes into it too..

I agree about the 109's being superior at that time, just look at what happened in '41-'42 when the Brits had to fight over German territory.

[Schepel]

Hi All,

Just finished watching this fine programme - for me definitely the pick of the bunch of the BBC's BOB season.

Provocative and very well informed. As someone who knows his way around the standard story of the battle pretty well there was enough here to really keep me engrossed and a few nuggets that were genuinely new to me.

Better quality of archive footage than usual as well - some great aerial footage of 109s especially.

He also made a pretty convincing argument [starting at ~34mins] that the 109 was the best fighter in 1940 - and yes I have heard ALL the arguments before.

Viewable on BBC iPlayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00txmkk/Battle_of_Britain_The_Real_Story/
though I believe unfortunately not accessible for non-UK residents :(

Highly recommended.

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Surley it was about all these things? To different degrees certainly, but all contributed. And loads of other little factors that just tipped the balance in the UK's favour, tactics, fatigue, morale, quality of pilots.

One thing really came across in the programe and that was just how scared some of the Germans were at the sight of Spitfires, so psychology comes into it too..

I agree about the 109's being superior at that time, just look at what happened in '41-'42 when the Brits had to fight over German territory.

Yes, you're quite right in all the above except maybe the tactics and the 109 bit.
If you re-read my first post, it says 'the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect', which encompasses all of your points.
Tactics-wise, the RAF initially utilised tight 'Vic' formations as opposed to the German's 'schwarm', which led to a lot of early RAF losses when 'bounced'. They also had guns harmonised at an ineffective distance. They soon learned to alter both.
Whether the 109 was a better fighter? Well Tom Neil, who has been quoted, was a Hurricane pilot during the battle, and presumably was comparing the 109 to the Hurri, but this wasn't made clear in the programme.
Sure, the 109 had fuel injection and cannon, and the machine guns (not the cannon) carried 55 seconds of ammo, but there were only two of them. This is the same rate of fire as the 8 Brownings on the British planes.
It's well documented that the Hurri could out-turn the 109, and the Spit was more agile and could also out-turn it.
So the superiority of any of these fighters depends entirely on which yardstick you measure them by.
Certainly plenty of 109's were shot down by Hurricanes, so......

[winny]

Yes, you're quite right in all the above except maybe the tactics and the 109 bit.
If you re-read my first post, it says 'the ability to undertake a task and organise available resources to the best effect', which encompasses all of your points.
Tactics-wise, the RAF initially utilised tight 'Vic' formations as opposed to the German's 'schwarm', which led to a lot of early RAF losses when 'bounced'. They also had guns harmonised at an ineffective distance. They soon learned to alter both.
Whether the 109 was a better fighter? Well Tom Neil, who has been quoted, was a Hurricane pilot during the battle, and presumably was comparing the 109 to the Hurri, but this wasn't made clear in the programme.
Sure, the 109 had fuel injection and cannon, and the machine guns (not the cannon) carried 55 seconds of ammo, but there were only two of them. This is the same rate of fire as the 8 Brownings on the British planes.
It's well documented that the Hurri could out-turn the 109, and the Spit was more agile and could also out-turn it.
So the superiority of any of these fighters depends entirely on which yardstick you measure them by.
Certainly plenty of 109's were shot down by Hurricanes, so......

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I know, I didn't mean for my post to read like it did. I should have said on both sides when I mentioned tactics, pilots etc.. I re read your post and you did say it wasn't about about planes and pilots. I'm just saying don't dismiss the other factors in order to make your point (which was already well put).

It's hard comparing Spitfires and 109's. One was at it's peak in 1940-1 the other in 1942-3.

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!! I've amended it accordingly. Thanks.
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

[winny]

Yeah you're right, I should've said 'wasn't simply about etc'. Of course these are relevant, but they are 'available resources', which I thought I'd covered.
Bad sentence structure!!
You're also correct about the comparisons, although in 42-43, the Spits had the 190's to contend with.
A Mate of mine has a copy of an actual signed combat report of Johnnie Johnson's. He shot at a 190 and damaged it, it dived away and he couldn't stay with it in a MkIXe. He managed to get in a last shot just before the 190 got out of range and brought him down.
By this time, I'd say a 109 in the same situation would've been 'easy meat'.
Having said that, Pete Brothers' favourite Spit was the Griffon Engined MkXIV, which probably would have stayed with the 190. Lots of differences between different marks of all these A/C.

I agree with you that in it's simplest form it was a battle of supply and demand and leadership, but then most are! As for the 109 vs Spit thing. I love the whole debate, it's like post match analysis and is a good way to spend some time (as long as it's civil) and like you said it ebbed and flowed as WW2 progressed and it kept it interesting right up till the end.

[ATAG_Dutch]

As for the 109 vs Spit thing. I love the whole debate, it's like post match analysis and is a good way to spend some time (as long as it's civil) and like you said it ebbed and flowed as WW2 progressed and it kept it interesting right up till the end.

I remember seeing an interview with Gerald 'Stapme' Stapleton, who said to a captured Luftwaffe pilot 'Do you know why the Spitfire is a better fighter than a 109? It's because any fool can fly a Spitfire, but it takes a lot of skill and training to fly a 109.'

Can't argue with that!:grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

Very interesting topic. You guys got me thinking and i think i can offer another perspective that deals with some distinctions in the comparison.

First of all, saying that X is the better fighter is a bit too vague. For example, a more accurate question would be "better in what and under what circumstances"?

Comparing only technical data is too narrow a point of view, adding tactical application of the airframe is a bit better (as the relative performance dictates the optimal fighting style) but then again it's useful for comparing aircraft on the basis of a 1 on 1 duel. This rarely happens in actual combat.

Things like pilot training in the proper application of the aicraft, as well as peripheral factors that influence combat can play a big role in the final outcome.

I do think the 109 was the better fighter when speaking from a purely technical point of view, plus it had some of the most experienced pilots at the time flying it. The reasons it couldn't turn the tide are the host of peripheral factors that influenced the way its sorties were flown and most of all, the inter-dependent dynamics between different types of friendly and hostile aircraft.
What i mean by this is something that many virtual pilots, especially those who fly the 190, can understand. A fighter is not strictly a boom and zoomer or a turn and burner, it depends on the opposition. The same fighter is a boom and zoomer when used against something like an I-16, but it's a turn and burner when used against something like a P-51. If the target is slower or turns better you BnZ, if he's faster and flies higher you rely on angles and try to drag him lower. In this sense the early 109s, while not a dog of an airplane, were mostly BnZ fighters for most of the early part of the war, as they usually faced opposition that was slower but had a tighter turning radius.

The thing is, a boom and zoom fighter (or more accurately, the BnZ application of it) which is superior on freijagd missions confines you to a certain fighting style: observing, controlling the engagement and swooping in for the kill when the time is right. You can do almost none of that when you're strapped to a formation of bombers as close escort. This is why a lot of the Russian fighters were turn and burners, they wanted them to stay glued to the bombers and gain angles fast enough to shoot down or drive away the attackers, not rack up the absolute maximum kill to death ratio.
The reason boom and zoom fighters worked well for the US as escorts during the latter years is that the German interceptors were similar in nature but inferior in performance at the altitudes the bombers operated. Well, the 109 did well up high, but it lacked the armament to consistently and efficiently be used as pure bomber hunter. The 190s were well armed and durable but lacked the performance to evade the escorts and that goes double so for twin engined heavy fighters like the 110. It's no wonder that most of the times the 109s were sent to tackle the escort while the 190s and 110s set to work on the bombers.

Back on the topic of BoB, let's combine the 109s boom and zoom nature when compared to the Hurricane and Spitfire, with the 109's limited endurance. It becomes quite clear that the 109, despite being the better fighter on a one-on-one basis, was all too often forced to fight in a way that, while not entirely favoring the opponent (the still lightweight E model compared to later 109s, while it was no Spitfire, could hold its own in a turning contest, it just wasn't the optimal thing to do), was effectively sapping it of its most important attribute in the relative match-up: the ability to control the engagement and decide when to strike.

You can't afford taking your time waiting for the best moment when your bombers are under attack or you know you have 5 minutes worth of fuel remaining in the combat zone, you just get in the fray right there and now.

Finally, the irony of it all, the armaments. Absolute optimal conditions can almost never be observed in actual air combat and aircraft design tends to account for that.
When you need to score hits on a fighter, you want to maximize the amount of rounds you can launch at the target. Generally speaking, fighters of the time were relatively lightweight and didn't take a tremendous amount of punishment to bring down, so design tended to favor batteries of fast firing machine guns as the prime anti-fighter weapon: more rounds per minute, more ammunition, easier to account for wasted ammo when leading a wildly maneuvering target by tracer or executing a tracking shot.
On the other hand when the intended target is a bomber, you want to maximize the amount of destructive power per projectile in order to limit the amount of time your fighter will spend within the bomber's defensive fire arc and range. The bomber doesn't maneuver that hard, it's easier to score hits on it, so all we care about is making each hit count the most. We don't care if during the firing pass the cannon spits half the amount of rounds a machine gun can, because we get a higher hit percentage due to the target's sluggishness and our rounds explode. Explosions on aircraft loaded with fuel and bombs really are a big deal after all. Hence, the preference of cannons as anti-bomber armaments.

Well, in the actual battle things were ironically reversed.The 109 went on to escort bombers and fend off some of the most nimble fighters of the time while armed with slow firing cannons that held a magazine of just 60 rounds. On the other hand, the RAF fighters intercepted bombers day in and day out while armed with a more or less strictly anti-fighter weapon system. One that due to its lightweight projectiles required a very strict observance of concentrating hits in one point to have any effect, something that meant the pilot had to spent more time within the bomber's defensive fire to have any chance of doing meaninfgul damage.

I bet that it wasn't only Galland who wanted a "squadron of Spitfires" to win the battle, but many British airmen would have also liked to have a squadron of 109s to use in bomber busting :-P

[KG26_Alpha]

I bet that it wasn't only Galland who wanted a "squadron of Spitfires" to win the battle, but many British airmen would have also liked to have a squadron of 109s to use in bomber busting :-P


Actually you have to put it in the correct context...............

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

[SEE]

I saw an interview with Adolph Galland and was fascinated to hear his accounts as a combat pilot. He described an encounter with what he thought was a flight of FW109s. They were in fact a new Soviet Fighter - later identified as LA5's. He was the only German pilot in his flightgroup to survive that encounter! He had the utmost respect for the later Russian planes and their pilots. I found his opinions concerning the various allied/Axis ac very balanced and informative.

[Splitter]

Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.

The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.

Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.

Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.

Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.

The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.

Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.

Splitter

[Thunderbolt56]

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

Same.

[Blackdog_kt]

Actually you have to put it in the correct context...............

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

Well, no disagreements there. That's pretty much what i meant in my previous post, maybe i didn't say it clear enough ;)



Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.

The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.

Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.

Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.

Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.

The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.

Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.

Splitter

That's also accurate, but the widespread prevalence of the .50 came a bit later. Not too late, as by Pearl Harbor a lot if not most of the US designs carried the .50, but it was not unusual to see US warbirds with .30s or a mix of .30s and .50s during the early months. I think part of the whole deal was also weight concerns.

In the end the US designers chose a well balanced compromise and stuck with it, as it was found to be good enough and provided a common standard across all platforms (ease of maintaining and training personnel to service a single weapon type,etc), one could say to the point of complacency as evidenced by the prevalence of .50s even until Korea (Sabres with six .50s against Migs carrying 23mm and 37mm cannons with a high rate of fire, maybe the only widespread user of cannons on the US side was the Corsair).
In the UK the situation was balanced with the introduction of the Hispano and in Germany with the Mg151, both of them weapons with a fast enough rate of fire for a cannon of the time and good balistic characteristics. Clearly, much superior in terms of ammunition quantity and ease of aiming to the MGFF the 109s used during BoB.

[jameson]

8 machine guns, Spitfire. Clue: why it's called spit fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4rrhlZwyDQ&feature=related

[Splitter]

At least the Spit had 8 pea shooters lol. Volume would help to make up for the lack of penetrating power.

Such an arrangement would have done well against Japanese fighters given their lack of armor and tendency to burst into flame when hit. Against more sturdy aircraft, like the 109, it would seem that something with more power would have been a better solution.

Yes, there certainly was an arms evolution throughout the war. Even the early Mustangs had some .30 cal guns (or .303). Weight was certainly a consideration as was space in the aircraft. Those bulges under a 109 wing were for increased ammo capacity. My understanding is that the some of the shape of the Spit wing was dictated by fitting the guns in (made wider front to back).

I am also eternally amazed by the limited amount of ammo carried on many planes. Russian craft seem to have very limited ammo supplies. Even the Mustangs only carried about 250 rounds per gun (depending on which position). That's not a lot of trigger time.

I have no idea how some pilots chalked up 3, 4, or even 5 kills in a mission with such limitations.

Splitter

[robtek]

Asfar as i remember H-J Marseille, i.e., spent around 12 to 20 rounds of his 20mm and 40 to 80 rounds 7,92 mm from his Bf109F4 for a air victory.
But he was a exceptional sharpshooter, always targeting the center where the pilot was.
What this low ammo expenditure made special is that he very often made successful high deflection shots.

[mungee]

Does it really come as a surprise to you guys? The Spitfire winning the Battle of Britain is propaganda chowder, professional historians know that the Me109 was an overall superior fighter. The Battle of Britain was lost only because of the white dressed fat ba$tard (no, not Elvis..).

I've read many accounts/books about the Battle of Britain and I've come to the conclusion that the RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain!!
What the RAF did do however, was prevent the Germans from winning!!
Preventing the Germans from winning was good enough to thwart Hitler's plan to invade Great Britain - so I suppose one could say that it was a "victory of sorts" for the RAF!
Hitler realised that he needed to URGENTLY switch his attention to Russia, before it re-armed etc to the extent that it would be too powerful to take on - which in fact is what it turned out to be ... no doubt aided by the necessity for the Germans to retain a lot of manpower, aircraft etc in the West.
I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe was defeated when they "packed their bags" and moved east!

I live in South Africa and I really hope to see some of these BBC BoB programmes - hopefully they'll be screened on BBC Knowledge or come out on DVD.

[Sternjaeger]

I've read many accounts/books about the Battle of Britain and I've come to the conclusion that the RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain!!
What the RAF did do however, was prevent the Germans from winning!!
Preventing the Germans from winning was good enough to thwart Hitler's plan to invade Great Britain - so I suppose one could say that it was a "victory of sorts" for the RAF!
Hitler realised that he needed to URGENTLY switch his attention to Russia, before it re-armed etc to the extent that it would be too powerful to take on - which in fact is what it turned out to be ... no doubt aided by the necessity for the Germans to retain a lot of manpower, aircraft etc in the West.
I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe was defeated when they "packed their bags" and moved east!

I live in South Africa and I really hope to see some of these BBC BoB programmes - hopefully they'll be screened on BBC Knowledge or come out on DVD.

You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards! The Luftwaffe was far from being in the same dire conditions as the Royal Air Force. If Goering would have taken his stick out of his ar$e and listened to his commanders he would have got the aerial dominance in a matter of a few months. The real issue was that the tactics were changed halfway and it was one of the poorest decisions in the history of warfare.

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

[Splitter]

You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards! The Luftwaffe was far from being in the same dire conditions as the Royal Air Force. If Goering would have taken his stick out of his ar$e and listened to his commanders he would have got the aerial dominance in a matter of a few months. The real issue was that the tactics were changed halfway and it was one of the poorest decisions in the history of warfare.

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

I very much agree with the first part of that. If Goering would have made the elimination of the RAF and RADAR the only priorities, things would have at least been much more difficult for the Brits.

Clearly, the Nazis would have had to pay a dear price for air supremacy but it would have been worth it from a strategic point of view, invasion or not.

I do not agree that the Nazi planes were clearly better or that German pilots were clearly better. The front line fighters on both sides were doing their jobs rather well, the Germans were just at a huge disadvantage in that they were near the limit of their range. Plus, the Brits were fighting at home...when they lost a plane they stood a decent chance of getting the pilot back. When the Germans lost a plane, they usually lost a pilot too. But the Germans did have the numbers advantage.

Another disadvantage the Nazis put themselves into was the inferiority of their bombers. Stukas were severely outclassed by the BoB and British planes made mincemeat out of them and other bombers. They never really developed a strategic bomber. If the Nazis had developed better bombers prior to the BoB, again the Brits would have had a much more difficult time of things.

I think arrogance played a huge role in the Nazi "defeat" in the BoB. I think it again came into play with the decision to invade Russia (never a good idea for dictators lol).

BTW, in that post it may seem that I used the terms "Nazi" and "German" almost interchangeably. I try to keep a clear distinction in my head between the Nazi leadership and the German soldiers and civilians. I understand they were not the same and hope everyone else does too. I try to use the proper term when needed, but sometimes the differences are probably not clear. Hope that makes sense.

Splitter

[Sternjaeger]

I very much agree with the first part of that. If Goering would have made the elimination of the RAF and RADAR the only priorities, things would have at least been much more difficult for the Brits.

Clearly, the Nazis would have had to pay a dear price for air supremacy but it would have been worth it from a strategic point of view, invasion or not.

I do not agree that the Nazi planes were clearly better or that German pilots were clearly better. The front line fighters on both sides were doing their jobs rather well, the Germans were just at a huge disadvantage in that they were near the limit of their range. Plus, the Brits were fighting at home...when they lost a plane they stood a decent chance of getting the pilot back. When the Germans lost a plane, they usually lost a pilot too. But the Germans did have the numbers advantage.

Splitter, the Me109 was an overall superior machine to the Spitfire, let alone the Hurricane, and this is a fact under a mere mechanical point of view. The DB601 was an advanced engine developed with an aeronautical mindset, and its versatility made it as legendary as the Merlin. The armament choice and displacement was superior as well: don't forget that in 1940 the RAF still used the "Dowding spread", while the Germans achieved valuable experience from the Spanish Civil War in terms of weapons and tactics; same goes for the fighting formations, which demonstrated the learning curve that the Germans had achieved during the pre-ww2 years. The Germans NEVER complained about shortage of planes and/or pilots in 1940, and the veterans were a formidable source of experience and teaching for the new guys.
The real disadvantage was the poor range of the fighters, but that was being dealt with thanks to the installation of external fuel tanks.


Another disadvantage the Nazis put themselves into was the inferiority of their bombers. Stukas were severely outclassed by the BoB and British planes made mincemeat out of them and other bombers. They never really developed a strategic bomber. If the Nazis had developed better bombers prior to the BoB, again the Brits would have had a much more difficult time of things.

this is misconception of propaganda. The Ju87 was indeed slow and cumbersome (at least in its early variants), but it provided the ideal weapon for pinpoint accuracy in bombing. The He111 could take hundreds of .303 rounds and fly back, and the Ju88 was a formidable machine. The mistake was strategic again: there was no reason to bomb cities, they should have concentrated on factories, RADARs and RAF bases, and soon they would have achieved an air superiority to protect an invasion spearhead.


I think arrogance played a huge role in the Nazi "defeat" in the BoB. I think it again came into play with the decision to invade Russia (never a good idea for dictators lol).

I agree about Goering's arrogance, but the pilots were another game. Many of the "old dogs" hated Goering for his delirious view of the Luftwaffe.
Arrogance had nothing to do with the invasion of Russia, but this is another story..


BTW, in that post it may seem that I used the terms "Nazi" and "German" almost interchangeably. I try to keep a clear distinction in my head between the Nazi leadership and the German soldiers and civilians. I understand they were not the same and hope everyone else does too. I try to use the proper term when needed, but sometimes the differences are probably not clear. Hope that makes sense.

Splitter

No worries, we know (or at least I know) you don't mean to offend anyone :)

SJ

[Splitter]

Sternjaeger, excellent post.

I understand what you are saying, but I think that by the time the 109's got over England, they were matched pretty well by the Spits. The 109 was more versatile and with all other things being equal, I would have rather been in a 109. But if my choice was whether to fight in a Spit or a 109 in the BoB, I would rather have been in the Spit. I figure that I could fight on fairly equal terms with the 109 and if I got shot down, I stood a decent chance of living through it and going back up again in a different aircraft.

If a pilot got shot down in a 109 (or had a mechanical failure for that matter) during the BoB, chances were that the war was over for him. If he stayed too long and burned too much fuel, he may or may not make it back to friendly territory. Plus, his job was usually to protect bombers which takes away from his offensive capabilities.

I would disagree that German bombers were adequate still in the BoB because they lost so many of them. Part of that was tactics for sure, but the Stuka in particular was too slow all of a sudden. It had done well in previous campaigns but had not faced the combination of decent enemy fighters backed by RADAR. I think the one common plane I would not have liked to fly in most in the BoB would have been the Stuka...the loss rate was just too high.

Too bad that both sides greatly inflated their numbers of "victories" after the battle as the numbers cannot really be trusted.

Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces. That's the arrogance I spoke of. With fewer bomber losses and a more focused bombing campaign, I don't think the RAF could have held out much longer. History might have been much different.

As for the invasion of Russia...just a bad idea lol. Hitler and the gang thought they would roll over the Russians as they had done to opponents in Europe. They under estimated the Russians and therefore the time and resources it would take to defeat them. They didn't even prepare their troops with winter gear and their vehicles were not prepared for operations during a Russian winter. But, they didn't expect the campaign to take so long.

There is a measure of arrogance there I think. Hitler thought he could do what Napoleon could not. He thought the same equipment and tactics would work against Russia like they worked against the French and others previously conquered. He did not prepare for what became a brutal winter even by Russian standards.

Basically, Hitler wasted a lot of resources and troops. There was a reason the Allies decided it was better to keep him in power rather than assassinating him...his decisions most often helped the Allied cause lol. Even his generals who were good military men were often left scratching their heads.

This is the cool things about history. It's not about the dates and the names, it's about what the players may have been thinking and the effects their decisions had on outcomes. The lessons, if there are any to be had, are in the "why". Historians have been debating those things since...well, sine the beginning of history :).

Good chat.

Splitter

[ATAG_Dutch]

Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces.
Splitter

They actually had this already in the Bf110, but insisted on its continued use as a fighter.
If you look up the exploits of Eprobungsgruppe 210 during the Battle, they used Bf110's experimentally for shallow dive bombing at high speed, which proved as accurate as the Stukas, but with far superior speed and defence.
If this had been adopted as a widespread tactic, it would have been highly effective.
As it was, both the Stukas as bombers and the Bf110's as fighters were almost totally withdrawn from the Battle due to high losses..
Also, the Ju88 was renowned for being very tough to kill, and once the bombs had gone could be very difficult to catch.
As to whether the Battle was won, Sternjaeger and Mungee, Germany gave up before the Luftwaffe was wasted away altogether, (due to manufacturing and training shortcomings) the invasion plans were postponed (if it was ever really intended in the first place), and Britain was not forced to negotiate. What more of a definition of winning do people need?;)
They also had nine months between the BoB and Barbarossa to re-supply and train up. It's not like Barbarossa was immediately afterwards!

[kendo65]

You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards!

This presumes that the battle was a simple 'numbers' game. For the Germans the BIG strategic-level point of the whole aerial battle was to establish air superiority over the south of England so that an invasion could take place.

This they demonstrably failed to do. I think it is fair to say then that they lost the battle - i.e. failed to achieve their strategic objective, and that the British won - i.e. achieved their strategic objective of preventing the Germans from gaining air superiority!


The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

Actually the RAF command and control, and Dowding and Park's management of the battle were hugely significant.

At the level of small-scale tactics (section, flight, squadron) the Germans definitely had the advantage early on, but I think it's fair to say they were comprehensively beaten at the operational and strategic levels.

And to say that 'they just decided to put things "on hold" ' brings to mind that old joke about the General telling his troops that they were "not retreating - just advancing in a different direction."

[dduff442]

It's funny how the 'when plucky little Britain stood alone' story has come to dominate all interpretations of the battle from either side's perspective.

Victory in the air was just the first step in a succession of feats -- each of increasing difficulty -- Germany needed to pull off in order to secure victory. Britain would not have thrown it's last resources into defending the SE or even defending London. The fighter Sqns would have been withdrawn and rebuilt if the BoB started to go wrong.

At that point, Hitler would have had the choice of gambling on a cross-channel attack (i.e. over 20+ miles of unsheltered atlantic waters), but without any navy to secure the sea lanes. One brief experiment was conducted with the landing barges... in daylight and with less than encouraging results.

Swarming across the channel en masse in darkness in their boats designed for inland waterways would have been an entirely different matter. Eisenhower had the most accurate weather forecast ever made in his hands when he ordered D-Day. Without similar information, Germany could have gotten lucky or it could have suffered an appalling fiasco.

Whether German air-landings would have resembled Eben Emael or Crete is anybody's guess but if they weren't much more like the former than the latter then all Germany's chances would have ended.

An German airhead on British soil would have been a deadly threat to Britain so at that point Fighter Command might have been expected to re-emerge with all the strength it could muster.

Cuisers and destroyers would have roamed the channel at night and, if they failed to cut German supplies, a BB could have been sacrificed on an end-run. Recalling the impact of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau etc. on convoys will illustrate the stupefying violence these machines could bring to bear on undefended merchants.

Five or six divisions would probably have defeated Britain's available field forces but you can't occupy a country the size of Britain with 5 Divisions. This was unfortunate for Hitler because sustaining even this force for a brief period was the absolute limit of Germany's logistical capabilities.

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur. Odd then, that this story is inverted when talking about the Battle of Britain. The prospect of invasion was one to be interpreted as an opportunity rather than as a risk.

Having talked up Germany's victories all through the summer of '40, Hitler was a victim of the expectations he had generated. If he didn't clinch it that year, however, he'd be left in exactly the same position as Napoleon: facing an adversary with unassailable naval power, a global trading network, ample supplies of everything Germany didn't have (oil, nickel, manganese, tungsten, rubber etc), willing to sustain the conflict literally for as long as necessary and able to do so for the foreseeable future. All exactly as in 1800-1812.

This wouldn't have been enough to secure an Allied victory, but Germany would never have known peace on its frontiers and sooner or later other powers would have joined the fight.

dduff

[Sternjaeger]

Sternjaeger, excellent post.

I understand what you are saying, but I think that by the time the 109's got over England, they were matched pretty well by the Spits. The 109 was more versatile and with all other things being equal, I would have rather been in a 109. But if my choice was whether to fight in a Spit or a 109 in the BoB, I would rather have been in the Spit. I figure that I could fight on fairly equal terms with the 109 and if I got shot down, I stood a decent chance of living through it and going back up again in a different aircraft.

If a pilot got shot down in a 109 (or had a mechanical failure for that matter) during the BoB, chances were that the war was over for him. If he stayed too long and burned too much fuel, he may or may not make it back to friendly territory. Plus, his job was usually to protect bombers which takes away from his offensive capabilities.

yeah, I'm not arguing over the tactical disadvantage of the Luftwaffe, I'm just saying that they had better aircrafts.


I would disagree that German bombers were adequate still in the BoB because they lost so many of them.

not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562


Part of that was tactics for sure, but the Stuka in particular was too slow all of a sudden. It had done well in previous campaigns but had not faced the combination of decent enemy fighters backed by RADAR. I think the one common plane I would not have liked to fly in most in the BoB would have been the Stuka...the loss rate was just too high.

Too bad that both sides greatly inflated their numbers of "victories" after the battle as the numbers cannot really be trusted.


Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.


Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces. That's the arrogance I spoke of. With fewer bomber losses and a more focused bombing campaign, I don't think the RAF could have held out much longer. History might have been much different.


as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.


As for the invasion of Russia...just a bad idea lol. Hitler and the gang thought they would roll over the Russians as they had done to opponents in Europe. They under estimated the Russians and therefore the time and resources it would take to defeat them. They didn't even prepare their troops with winter gear and their vehicles were not prepared for operations during a Russian winter. But, they didn't expect the campaign to take so long.

There is a measure of arrogance there I think. Hitler thought he could do what Napoleon could not. He thought the same equipment and tactics would work against Russia like they worked against the French and others previously conquered. He did not prepare for what became a brutal winter even by Russian standards.

I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.
Germans weren't complete fools, they well knew that they stood a chance if they made it to Moscow. Everything was going according to plans, but then Hitler had one of his typical anal fits and decided to waste three weeks in the Dnepr area to get access to the coal mines, and that's the main reason why the Germans screwed up Barbarossa. If they stuck to the according plans and pushed straight to Moscow from the start he would have decapitated the Russian bear and things could have been quite different..


Basically, Hitler wasted a lot of resources and troops. There was a reason the Allies decided it was better to keep him in power rather than assassinating him...his decisions most often helped the Allied cause lol. Even his generals who were good military men were often left scratching their heads.

This is the cool things about history. It's not about the dates and the names, it's about what the players may have been thinking and the effects their decisions had on outcomes. The lessons, if there are any to be had, are in the "why". Historians have been debating those things since...well, sine the beginning of history :).

Good chat.

Splitter

The real arrogance of the Germans was in the fact that they thought that the Allies wouldn't keep up and gear up for modern warfare in time. And if one side they got their ar$e kicked by the American technology, on the other side they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Russian troops (20mln+ of military casualties: the Jewish holocaust is a joke compared to it..).

I agree, this is a good chat indeed :)

[Sternjaeger]

This presumes that the battle was a simple 'numbers' game. For the Germans the BIG strategic-level point of the whole aerial battle was to establish air superiority over the south of England so that an invasion could take place.

This they demonstrably failed to do. I think it is fair to say then that they lost the battle - i.e. failed to achieve their strategic objective, and that the British won - i.e. achieved their strategic objective of preventing the Germans from gaining air superiority!


The point is that the German strategy went "headless chicken" at some point, and they dispersed their potential. If things carried on for an extra six months I doubt the results of the battle would have been the same. It would be idiotic to say that the RAF didn't play an important part in the battle, but I would say that the outcome of the battle was more due to the German mistakes than to the RAF struggle.


Actually the RAF command and control, and Dowding and Park's management of the battle were hugely significant.

U really do overrate Dowding mate..


At the level of small-scale tactics (section, flight, squadron) the Germans definitely had the advantage early on, but I think it's fair to say they were comprehensively beaten at the operational and strategic levels.

And to say that 'they just decided to put things "on hold" ' brings to mind that old joke about the General telling his troops that they were "not retreating - just advancing in a different direction."

Operation Sea Lion was actually classified as "on hold", If you come to think of it, apart for the Jersey Islands nor Germany or Britain lost or gained any significant territory, and the Germans were confident that once they made it to Moscow they could come back and give a massive blow to Britain.. fortunately their boss was a tit..

[Splitter]

yeah, I'm not arguing over the tactical disadvantage of the Luftwaffe, I'm just saying that they had better aircrafts.

not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562



Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.



as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.


I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.
Germans weren't complete fools, they well knew that they stood a chance if they made it to Moscow. Everything was going according to plans, but then Hitler had one of his typical anal fits and decided to waste three weeks in the Dnepr area to get access to the coal mines, and that's the main reason why the Germans screwed up Barbarossa. If they stuck to the according plans and pushed straight to Moscow from the start he would have decapitated the Russian bear and things could have been quite different..

The real arrogance of the Germans was in the fact that they thought that the Allies wouldn't keep up and gear up for modern warfare in time. And if one side they got their ar$e kicked by the American technology, on the other side they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Russian troops (20mln+ of military casualties: the Jewish holocaust is a joke compared to it..).

I agree, this is a good chat indeed :)

I really don't see a lot of contradictions, just small points on either side of similar conclusions :).

On Stukas, they were withdrawn from combat operations after losing about 1/5 of their force in about 10 days (doing it from memory, forgive me if I am off). Planes like that need either skies that are cleared of enemy fighters or really slow enemy fighters. The Americans suffered similar losses with their dive bombers in the Pacific.

Hitler was the biggest problem the Nazis had militarily. Really...they guy could screw up a wet dream. He thought his time as a corporal running messages (rather brave I must say though) somehow qualified him to run military campaigns. After him, you have to look at his cronies as the incompetents in charge.

The generals were often very good military men. The soldiers were as good as any on any side. Their equipment was decent. The problem was always leadership (I'm separating military operations from political motivations obviously).

Making it to Moscow was a huge gamble and they greatly underestimated the Russian people. The Russians willingly sacrificed millions of civilian lives to stem the German tide...not something the Nazi leadership counted on. They certainly did not count on the T-34 either in quality or quantity. As I said in another thread, rule number one for aspiring dictators is DO NOT invade Russia lol. To expect the whole campaign to go like clockwork on schedule and to not prepare for contingencies (like General Winter) was pure foolishness which I think stemmed from Hitler's arrogance.

Germans were not fools, but Hitler and his cronies were.

BTW, I have never been clear on whether or not Hitler approved the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor prior to it happening. I know he turned around and declared war on the US, but I find it hard to believe that he thought bringing the US industrial might into the war was a good idea....though he was probably tired of lend-lease by then.

Splitter

[ATAG_Dutch]

The only reason Stuka losses were that low is because they were withdrawn from the Battle after being knocked down like proverbial flies on I think only two occasions. Similar reason for 'only' 229 Bf110's, as they weren't up to the job of a dedicated fighter, compared to 533 Bf109's, which were shot down by the terribly inferior Spitfires and Hurricanes with their so tiny as to be insignificant .303 'peashooters'.

However, most comparisons of losses tend to be inaccurate, as people rarely count overall losses on the British side. If we count total losses on both sides, including British bomber losses, the statistics become closer again.

I can't agree with the 'when Fighter Command was on its knees' bit though. This is another propaganda ploy. Fighter Command was never 'on its knees' as evidenced by the deployment of the 'Big Wings' from 12 Group on Sept 15th, and the massive psychological impact this had on the German crews. This was when they discovered they'd been getting nowhere, and the RAF was as strong as ever, contrary to their intelligence reports. At no point was any airfield out of commission for more than a day, although one airfield was abandoned as it was too close to France for the aircraft to get to altitude.

At the end of the Battle, Fighter Command had more available fighters and pilots than at the start. It was Park's tactic of sending them up squadron by squadron in rotation that gave the impression of small numbers. This tactic gave the RAF a highly 'target rich' environment to fight in.
The Luftwaffe certainly weren't as strong at the end as they were at the beginning, as their manufacturing and training output couldn't keep pace with their losses. Britain out-produced Germany in both these areas.
The fact that British aircraft were easier to fly well probably also helped in speeding up delivery of pilots to the front.

It's impossible to 'overrate' Dowding, or Park for that matter.
Dowding devised the most comprehensive and efficient air defence network in the world.
Park put it to excellent use. Its principles are still in use today.

As it happens, Park then went on to face Kesselring again in Malta, and he beat him there too.

[Sternjaeger]

The only reason Stuka losses were that low is because they were withdrawn from the Battle after being knocked down like proverbial flies on I think only two occasions. Similar reason for 'only' 229 Bf110's, as they weren't up to the job of a dedicated fighter, compared to 533 Bf109's, which were shot down by the terribly inferior Spitfires and Hurricanes with their so tiny as to be insignificant .303 'peashooters'.

dude, do not insist on this aspect: the Germans shot down some 601 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires (which makes a total of 958 planes more or less). So, despite the tactical advantage of flying over its own territory, the RAF lost almost twice the number of fighters that the Germans did.. even if they lost the same number of planes it would have been a tactical failure for the RAF, considering their territorial advantage.


However, most comparisons of losses tend to be inaccurate, as people rarely count overall losses on the British side. If we count total losses on both sides, including British bomber losses, the statistics become closer again.

in addition to the aforementioned fighters, the RAF lost some 53 Blenheims and 76 other planes. Statistics are more accurate nowadays, the Luftwaffe lost circa 1600 planes, the RAF circa 1000.


I can't agree with the 'when Fighter Command was on its knees' bit though. This is another propaganda ploy. Fighter Command was never 'on its knees' as evidenced by the deployment of the 'Big Wings' from 12 Group on Sept 15th, and the massive psychological impact this had on the German crews. This was when they discovered they'd been getting nowhere, and the RAF was as strong as ever, contrary to their intelligence reports. At no point was any airfield out of commission for more than a day, although one airfield was abandoned as it was too close to France for the aircraft to get to altitude.

there were not enough pilots man, that is a known fact. The truth is that if the Fighter Command didn't get a break they would have found very hard to keep their planes in the air, simply because the pilot syllabus wasn't fast enough.


At the end of the Battle, Fighter Command had more available fighters and pilots than at the start. It was Park's tactic of sending them up squadron by squadron in rotation that gave the impression of small numbers. This tactic gave the RAF a highly 'target rich' environment to fight in.
The Luftwaffe certainly weren't as strong at the end as they were at the beginning, as their manufacturing and training output couldn't keep pace with their losses. Britain out-produced Germany in both these areas.
The fact that British aircraft were easier to fly well probably also helped in speeding up delivery of pilots to the front.

This is a common misconception: the Germans had already committed a huge number of planes for the Battle of Britain, they started it with the intended number of planes that they wanted, and then had to concentrate their resources on other industrial productions, hence the lower number of planes produced during the Battle of Britain; the British had to change pace and start building planes to catch up with the war. The numbers of planes produced per se doesn't really give any valuable perspective to the battle.


It's impossible to 'overrate' Dowding, or Park for that matter.
Dowding devised the most comprehensive and efficient air defence network in the world.
Park put it to excellent use. Its principles are still in use today.

As it happens, Park then went on to face Kesselring again in Malta, and he beat him there too.

I haven't put Dowding and Park on the same level: the former was an old fashioned but charismatic leader who gained popularity with the Battle of Britain (but bear in mind that his "brilliant intuition" was a simple consequence of the entry in service of the Radar system), and unfortunately he wasn't as successful when it came to night fighting issues.. Park was indeed a brilliant tactician, and IMHO is the man that made a real difference in the development of the RAF.

[Blackdog_kt]

It's funny how the 'when plucky little Britain stood alone' story has come to dominate all interpretations of the battle from either side's perspective.

Victory in the air was just the first step in a succession of feats -- each of increasing difficulty -- Germany needed to pull off in order to secure victory. Britain would not have thrown it's last resources into defending the SE or even defending London. The fighter Sqns would have been withdrawn and rebuilt if the BoB started to go wrong.

At that point, Hitler would have had the choice of gambling on a cross-channel attack (i.e. over 20+ miles of unsheltered atlantic waters), but without any navy to secure the sea lanes. One brief experiment was conducted with the landing barges... in daylight and with less than encouraging results.

Swarming across the channel en masse in darkness in their boats designed for inland waterways would have been an entirely different matter. Eisenhower had the most accurate weather forecast ever made in his hands when he ordered D-Day. Without similar information, Germany could have gotten lucky or it could have suffered an appalling fiasco.

Whether German air-landings would have resembled Eben Emael or Crete is anybody's guess but if they weren't much more like the former than the latter then all Germany's chances would have ended.

An German airhead on British soil would have been a deadly threat to Britain so at that point Fighter Command might have been expected to re-emerge with all the strength it could muster.

Cuisers and destroyers would have roamed the channel at night and, if they failed to cut German supplies, a BB could have been sacrificed on an end-run. Recalling the impact of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau etc. on convoys will illustrate the stupefying violence these machines could bring to bear on undefended merchants.

Five or six divisions would probably have defeated Britain's available field forces but you can't occupy a country the size of Britain with 5 Divisions. This was unfortunate for Hitler because sustaining even this force for a brief period was the absolute limit of Germany's logistical capabilities.

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur. Odd then, that this story is inverted when talking about the Battle of Britain. The prospect of invasion was one to be interpreted as an opportunity rather than as a risk.

Having talked up Germany's victories all through the summer of '40, Hitler was a victim of the expectations he had generated. If he didn't clinch it that year, however, he'd be left in exactly the same position as Napoleon: facing an adversary with unassailable naval power, a global trading network, ample supplies of everything Germany didn't have (oil, nickel, manganese, tungsten, rubber etc), willing to sustain the conflict literally for as long as necessary and able to do so for the foreseeable future. All exactly as in 1800-1812.

This wouldn't have been enough to secure an Allied victory, but Germany would never have known peace on its frontiers and sooner or later other powers would have joined the fight.

dduff

That's actually a very well thought out and accurate post. Maybe the main consideration in achieving air superiority was the ability to protect or cripple the royal navy (depending on which side one came from). I know for a fact that the reason my county's government chose to side with the allies and suffer 4 years of brutal occupation, resulting in losing 10% of its total polulation to reasons ranging from reprisals to hunger, was that the people in charge simply thought "this is a world war fought over long distances, navies will play a big part and the UK has the best navy of them all'.

Greece was ruled by a dictatorship when Mussolini's ambassador in Athens delivered the ultimatum, asking for free passage and occupation of certain strategic territories. The Greek dictator at the time was closer ideologically to the fascists of Italy and Germany, plus the local royal family was of Danish/German descent and prone to side with the axis. In fact, they tried that in WWI as well, the end result was that pro-allied politicians formed a separate government in the north and nothern Greece was with the allies, while southern Greece was pro-central powers and Athens got occupied by the allied fleet.

The reason both the king and the dictator decided to oppose the axis was two-fold. First of all, the Greek people always root for the underdog and dislike the aggressor, so any attempt to join the axis would have been met by intense resistance from the inside. Second, they were expecting Britain to exhaust their enemies through naval power and blockades, especially since they were suspecting the US would either join the war itself (which it did) or put its industrial power to use in "propping up" Britain when things would get tough through lend-lease.

To make it short i think that even if the luftwaffe had achieved complete air superiority in southern UK, even a suicide run by the royal navy could have wrought terrible losses on the German invasion fleet and either thwart the landings altogether, or diminish numbers so much that ground troops on British soil would be able to hold their ground and achieve a stalemate or more. Maybe 90% of the royal navy units operating in the area would be sunk, but if the RAF had kept some reserves to buy them time and provide air cover they would be able to do substantial damage to the German invasion fleet.
Of course, if the RAF was totally depleted by that point and the warships operated with no cover at all, it would be a totally different story.

Overall, this is a pretty good discussion with lots of opposing, yet well argued points. Well done everybody ;)

[proton45]

I have rather enjoyed "The South Coast Trail"...

[kendo65]

...
not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.


Really have to disagree here. The Stukas were withdrawn from the battle on 19th August, so quoting loss rates for the entire period of the battle will give a misleadingly low measure for the Stuka's relative vulnerability.

To get a proper picture we'd need to look at relative percentage of type loss rates for German bomber types over the common period that they were employed.

The fact is though that they were withdrawn by Goering because of unacceptable attrition/loss rates.

(Also, I think you are perhaps a little too quick to define positions that you personally have trouble accepting as 'propaganda'.) ;)


as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.

...which had loss rates comparable to the Stuka, but unlike them were maintained in the battle due to Goering's obstinacy, eventually being given 109 escorts!

edit: in the interests of fairness - and having re-read the post that this quote was actually referring to - I would agree that the 110 could perhaps have been used more successfully in the fighter-bomber role rather than persisting as a straight fighter


I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.

With great respect, you don't seem averse to a spot of this yourself ;)

[kendo65]

The point is that the German strategy went "headless chicken" at some point, and they dispersed their potential. If things carried on for an extra six months I doubt the results of the battle would have been the same. It would be idiotic to say that the RAF didn't play an important part in the battle, but I would say that the outcome of the battle was more due to the German mistakes than to the RAF struggle.

I don't disagree that the Germans made bad strategic decisons at key points, but the argument was over your statement that the Germans didn't really lose the battle. I was pointing out reasons for concluding that they did. You have now widened the debate to say that (paraphrasing) - "Yes, but they wouldn't have lost if they had done things differently..."

That may well be true. 'What if ' scenarios have their place, but we were discussing what actually happened.


U really do overrate Dowding mate..


Disagree.


Operation Sea Lion was actually classified as "on hold",

They may have 'classified' it as such, but the fact is that they missed their chance, and subsequent strategic decisions ensured that they wouldn't be in a position to succeed in the future.

If you come to think of it, apart for the Jersey Islands nor Germany or Britain lost or gained any significant territory, and the Germans were confident that once they made it to Moscow they could come back and give a massive blow to Britain..

This is another red herring (just like the 'numbers game') for suggesting that the outcome was an honourable draw. I really think that a judgement on who won or lost should be made on which side achieved their overall strategic purpose for the battle (see my previous post).

--- --- ---

Also, to address a previous point:

...
The Germans NEVER complained about shortage of planes and/or pilots in 1940,
...


See this blog posting by James Holland :

"There was also a problem of aircraft shortages – one fighter pilot had to wait three weeks after joining his staffel before there was a Me 109 for him to fly."

http://www.secondworldwarforum.com/2008/05/21/battle-of-britain-luftwaffe-interviews/

[ATAG_Dutch]

I was so wound up by your post I laid this out very badly by answering your points within the quote. Apologies.

dude, do not insist on this aspect: the Germans shot down some 601 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires (which makes a total of 958 planes more or less). So, despite the tactical advantage of flying over its own territory, the RAF lost almost twice the number of fighters that the Germans did.. even if they lost the same number of planes it would have been a tactical failure for the RAF, considering their territorial advantage.

The RAF were concentrating on attacking bombers. The idea that the Battle was all about fighter v fighter encounters is a bit shortsighted. Also, you do not include the Bf110 fighters in your figures. This brings the fighter tally closer at 762 German fighter losses.

in addition to the aforementioned fighters, the RAF lost some 53 Blenheims and 76 other planes. Statistics are more accurate nowadays, the Luftwaffe lost circa 1600 planes, the RAF circa 1000.

The RAF lost 1088 according to your figures, so Britain also won the battle of attrition. The losses in trained German aircrew were far greater than 1600, as the RAF concentrated on the bombers.

there were not enough pilots man, that is a known fact. The truth is that if the Fighter Command didn't get a break they would have found very hard to keep their planes in the air, simply because the pilot syllabus wasn't fast enough.

There were not enough pilots to give the RAF a numerical advantage over the Germans, hence needing to achieve a kill ratio of roughly 2 to 1 to be assured of success.
Your version of 'truth' relies on the 'what if' scenario of Germany maintaining their attacks on airfields. What ifs aren't truth. See previous post on impact on airfields.

This is a common misconception: the Germans had already committed a huge number of planes for the Battle of Britain, they started it with the intended number of planes that they wanted, and then had to concentrate their resources on other industrial productions, hence the lower number of planes produced during the Battle of Britain; the British had to change pace and start building planes to catch up with the war. The numbers of planes produced per se doesn't really give any valuable perspective to the battle.

So the fact that the RAF had more aircraft and pilots at the end of the Battle than at the beginning, whereas the Germans had far less also proves nothing?!

I haven't put Dowding and Park on the same level: the former was an old fashioned but charismatic leader who gained popularity with the Battle of Britain (but bear in mind that his "brilliant intuition" was a simple consequence of the entry in service of the Radar system), and unfortunately he wasn't as successful when it came to night fighting issues.. Park was indeed a brilliant tactician, and IMHO is the man that made a real difference in the development of the RAF.

Actually, it was Dowding who instigated the development of airborne radar in the night fighting Beaufighters. Many people thought he was mad.

Sorry Stern, but you really do have to conduct some more in depth research. And not just those works produced by people who've made a career of debunking the propaganda mythology.
I'm not the sort of person who likes to make essay length posts, or I'd tell you myself, but read up a bit more.
Dowding coordinated RDF with the observer corps and telephone and teleprinter services, together with the command/group/sector/airfield/squadron information loop. He took every available development to form a cohesive whole that no-one else in the world had thought of. Calling this a coincidence is just ill-informed and provocative.
He was not old fashioned, but revolutionary and very modern. He wasn't 'charismatic', his nickname was 'Stuffy', and he wasn't well liked. Neither did he gain popularity. He and Park were both moved out of their jobs soon after the Battle due to internal RAF political machinations, and neither of these men were mentioned in the official government pamphlet published soon after the Battle.

This misunderstanding of two men's characters and contributions in itself reveals profound misinformation, which by inference shows the remainder of your arguments to be less than credible at best.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

It's funny how the 'when plucky little Britain stood alone' story has come to dominate all interpretations of the battle from either side's perspective.

Victory in the air was just the first step in a succession of feats -- each of increasing difficulty -- Germany needed to pull off in order to secure victory. Britain would not have thrown it's last resources into defending the SE or even defending London. The fighter Sqns would have been withdrawn and rebuilt if the BoB started to go wrong.

At that point, Hitler would have had the choice of gambling on a cross-channel attack (i.e. over 20+ miles of unsheltered atlantic waters), but without any navy to secure the sea lanes. One brief experiment was conducted with the landing barges... in daylight and with less than encouraging results.

Swarming across the channel en masse in darkness in their boats designed for inland waterways would have been an entirely different matter. Eisenhower had the most accurate weather forecast ever made in his hands when he ordered D-Day. Without similar information, Germany could have gotten lucky or it could have suffered an appalling fiasco.

Whether German air-landings would have resembled Eben Emael or Crete is anybody's guess but if they weren't much more like the former than the latter then all Germany's chances would have ended.

An German airhead on British soil would have been a deadly threat to Britain so at that point Fighter Command might have been expected to re-emerge with all the strength it could muster.

Cuisers and destroyers would have roamed the channel at night and, if they failed to cut German supplies, a BB could have been sacrificed on an end-run. Recalling the impact of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau etc. on convoys will illustrate the stupefying violence these machines could bring to bear on undefended merchants.

Five or six divisions would probably have defeated Britain's available field forces but you can't occupy a country the size of Britain with 5 Divisions. This was unfortunate for Hitler because sustaining even this force for a brief period was the absolute limit of Germany's logistical capabilities.

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur. Odd then, that this story is inverted when talking about the Battle of Britain. The prospect of invasion was one to be interpreted as an opportunity rather than as a risk.

Having talked up Germany's victories all through the summer of '40, Hitler was a victim of the expectations he had generated. If he didn't clinch it that year, however, he'd be left in exactly the same position as Napoleon: facing an adversary with unassailable naval power, a global trading network, ample supplies of everything Germany didn't have (oil, nickel, manganese, tungsten, rubber etc), willing to sustain the conflict literally for as long as necessary and able to do so for the foreseeable future. All exactly as in 1800-1812.

This wouldn't have been enough to secure an Allied victory, but Germany would never have known peace on its frontiers and sooner or later other powers would have joined the fight.

dduff

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.


Hello Duffiey! You're Irish? Ah well, bully for you. I'm English, and there are few things 'more annoying' than a Republican Paddy with a chip on his shoulder. Boo hoo hoo......"800 years of oppression" blah blah blah. Cry me a River, and GROW UP. Its 2010 now, no sympathy.

Heed not the Myth of the "Gentle Irish", dear reader. In fact, support for 'Herr Hitler', Anti-Semitism and Fascism was rampant amidst the "Emerald Isle" circa 1940.

A fact that they are only now beginning to acknowledge. The Irish are very fond of playing the "victim card", but in fact have been some of the worse persecutors that the world has ever seen. De valera, best pals with Herr Hitler, (Eire Signed the book of Condolence upon Hitlers Death! Awww, how sweet!) Sean Russel (Provo Leader) best pals.....Look, I could go on. And I will, if you provoke me further. Any Nazis in Eire? Well, you should know, since you have knowingly sheltered so many of these Mass Murderers, and did next to nowt to stop it. Wow....A culture of repression, cover ups, and guilt, how are the kids doing?

F*CK YOU.

Want a list, Paddy, Freedom Fighter?

Look, my advice to you (and Ratzinger) is divvent bother. Shut the f*ck up because you do not have a leg to stand on. We have done it before and we will do it again if any 'Man' of you threatens our Children. No mercy. End of.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.


Hello Duffiey! You're Irish? Ah well, bully for you. I'm English, and there are few things 'more annoying' than a Republican Paddy with a chip on his shoulder. Boo hoo hoo......"800 years of oppression" blah blah blah. Cry me a River, and GROW UP. Its 2010 now, no sympathy.

Heed not the Myth of the "Gentle Irish", dear reader. In fact, support for 'Herr Hitler', Anti-Semitism and Fascism was rampant amidst the "Emerald Isle" circa 1940.

A fact that they are only now beginning to acknowledge. The Irish are very fond of playing the "victim card", but in fact have been some of the worse persecutors that the world has ever seen. De valera, best pals with Herr Hitler, (Eire Signed the book of Condolence upon Hitlers Death! Awww, how sweet!) Sean Russel (Provo Leader) best pals.....Look, I could go on. And I will, if you provoke me further. Any Nazis in Eire? Well, you should know, since you have knowingly sheltered so many of these Mass Murderers, and did next to nowt to stop it. Wow....A culture of repression, cover ups, and guilt, how are the kids doing?

F*CK YOU.

Want a list, Paddy, Freedom Fighter?

Look, my advice to you (and Ratzinger) is divvent bother. Shut the f*ck up because you do not have a leg to stand on. End of.

I can't see anything in duff's post to warrant that level of unnecessary invective.
I'm English too, and can see his point of view.
BTW, ever heard of Oswald Mosely? Edward VIII? Even Beaverbrook and the Daily Mail supported Hitler and appeasement until Churchill gave him a new job.

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.


Hello Duffiey! You're Irish? Ah well, bully for you. I'm English, and there are few things 'more annoying' than a Republican Paddy with a chip on his shoulder. Boo hoo hoo......"800 years of oppression" blah blah blah. Cry me a River, and GROW UP. Its 2010 now, no sympathy.

Heed not the Myth of the "Gentle Irish", dear reader. In fact, support for 'Herr Hitler', Anti-Semitism and Fascism was rampant amidst the "Emerald Isle" circa 1940.

A fact that they are only now beginning to acknowledge. The Irish are very fond of playing the "victim card", but in fact have been some of the worse persecutors that the world has ever seen. De valera, best pals with Herr Hitler, (Eire Signed the book of Condolence upon Hitlers Death! Awww, how sweet!) Sean Russel (Provo Leader) best pals.....Look, I could go on. And I will, if you provoke me further. Any Nazis in Eire? Well, you should know, since you have knowingly sheltered so many of these Mass Murderers, and did next to nowt to stop it. Wow....A culture of repression, cover ups, and guilt, how are the kids doing?

F*CK YOU.

Want a list, Paddy, Freedom Fighter?

Look, my advice to you (and Ratzinger) is divvent bother. Shut the f*ck up because you do not have a leg to stand on. We have done it before and we will do it again if any 'Man' of you threatens our Children. No mercy. End of.

Wow, how nice of you to completely disregard the fact that

a) Irishmen have fought in most of your wars, in many cases after you forcefully drafted them and
b) a lot of what they did was along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Saying the Irish are Nazis is just like saying the Finns are Nazis. But then again, being a westerner with an axe to grind makes it ok for Soviets to be attacked, so we can afford to be understanding towards the Finns, even if they actively took part in the war but the Irish did not, right? :rolleyes:

And let's not forget the rest of the colonies who fought and bled by your side on two world wars, willingly or not, but where greeted with the butt of a rifle to the face after the war, when they thought they would at least be able to "buy" some degree of independence for their troubles and sacrifice. India, Cyprus, the Arab nations, Africa, etc etc, not one of them gained independence without some form of war and without having long time geo-political "hooks" inserted so that you could keep manipulating them for decades to come.

Does that mean the UK is all crap? Far from it. In fact, i am convinced that even statistically speaking, it's impossible for any single group of people (nations, football team fans, religions, political groups, whatever) to be 100% good or 100% rotten.

So why am i saying all that ugly stuff about the UK? Well, i'm just trying to help you understand how you came off in your previous post :-P

See, we can do selective memory too and it doesn't make your country look good either. The thing is, you can't lump everyone together (like i did here to emphasize this point) and expect to be treated as objective.You my friend suffer from an accute case of double standards it seems. And for the record, no, i'm not Irish and i have no problem disagreeing with people and having a civil debate about it.

Maybe you should take notes from the way Dutch posted, he clearly shows that he's willing to apply a common standard to all when judging them and that makes him impartial and objective. The UK had its dirty laundry too and that's what happens with all nations, it's not a surprise.

Like i used to say to some friends when political disagreements came up "if you don't want it talked about then don't do it in the first place, but don't expect people to just shut up about it".

No ill will intended by the way. I know the written medium sometimes seems terse and unforgiving when touching on sensitive subjects, but i'm in a bit of a hurry and couldn't edit this into my usual diatribes that contain all sorts of disclaimers to make sure i ruffle the minimum amount of feathers ;)

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I can't see anything in duff's post to warrant that level of unnecessary invective.
I'm English too, and can see his point of view.
BTW, ever heard of Oswald Mosely? Edward VIII? Even Beaverbrook and the Daily Mail supported Hitler and appeasement until Churchill gave him a new job.


I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.

He started it. He said he was 'Irish' as if it mattered to the debate (when in fact it does not)

BTW, ever heard of Oswald Mosely? Edward VIII? Even Beaverbrook and the Daily Mail supported Hitler and appeasement until Churchill gave him a new job

Of course, and this is true. Edward the Traitor however was under 24/7 constant MI5 Surveillance. Mosely? Defeated by the BRITISH PEOPLE (Including Irish Dockers I might add) at the Battle of Cable Street.

an assured sense of its own grandeur.

This is what got my goat, and whoever cried Racsim is barking up the wrong tree.

I don't need lectures from a people who actively supported Fascism ( as far back as Spain and the 'Irish Brigades' Military support of Franco, whom they fought for).

Don't get me started on the 'culture of silence' within Catholicism either, perhaps it is Ok in your book to sanction Holocaust Deniers. Not in mine.

A Brave Irish RAF Volunteer by the name of Cathal O'Shannon however can sum it up far better than I ever could. He remarked that when he returned to his homeland of Ireland he was treat like a criminal. Work that one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyrOw5x5Hn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXfnK0t0C8o&feature=related

There are 4 parts, I actually felt physically sick watching the first few and could not continue.

BTW, it is quite impossible for this post to be "racist" you fool, since I have Celtic blood myself. I am just sick and tired of the English being blamed for all of the worlds woes, and people taking no responsibility for their own actions.

There ye go.

[dduff442]

I'm Irish and, as Danes or Dutch or Portugese etc will tell you, there are few things as irritating as coming from a small country with a large neighbour possessing an assured sense of its own grandeur.


Hello Duffiey! You're Irish? Ah well, bully for you. I'm English, and there are few things 'more annoying' than a Republican Paddy with a chip on his shoulder. Boo hoo hoo......"800 years of oppression" blah blah blah. Cry me a River, and GROW UP. Its 2010 now, no sympathy.

Heed not the Myth of the "Gentle Irish", dear reader. In fact, support for 'Herr Hitler', Anti-Semitism and Fascism was rampant amidst the "Emerald Isle" circa 1940.

A fact that they are only now beginning to acknowledge. The Irish are very fond of playing the "victim card", but in fact have been some of the worse persecutors that the world has ever seen. De valera, best pals with Herr Hitler, (Eire Signed the book of Condolence upon Hitlers Death! Awww, how sweet!) Sean Russel (Provo Leader) best pals.....Look, I could go on. And I will, if you provoke me further. Any Nazis in Eire? Well, you should know, since you have knowingly sheltered so many of these Mass Murderers, and did next to nowt to stop it. Wow....A culture of repression, cover ups, and guilt, how are the kids doing?

F*CK YOU.

Want a list, Paddy, Freedom Fighter?

Look, my advice to you (and Ratzinger) is divvent bother. Shut the f*ck up because you do not have a leg to stand on. We have done it before and we will do it again if any 'Man' of you threatens our Children. No mercy. End of.

Wow. Are you sure you cooked up all that indignation just while reading my post or had it been boiling away previously in the back of your mind? You seem to have a few frustrations to work off there.

Large countries patronise small ones. The small countries get defensive and the large neighbours get hurt feelings. These are fact to be filed next to the likes of the Treaty of Westphalia and the United Nations Charter in the minds of the Kissingers of this world.

Fascism's first (and last) blush in Ireland came in 1934. Eoin O'Duffy was thankfully the kind of half-crazed buffoon that even other half-crazed buffoons would hesitate to vote for. He went off to Spain where his force spent one day at the front before being declared officially useless.

Do some research on the number of Irish who actually worked for Nazi Germany in any capacity -- less than 20.

Compare that with the 45,000 Irish volunteers who fought with British forces alone in WWII. *Paddy* Finucane was one, along with 7 other BoB pilots if I remember the credits from 'Battle of Britain' right. Even *Paddy* Mayne (a Northern Unionist) played Rugby for Ireland.

Are these included among "the worst persecutors the world has ever seen"? I'd be interested in your list of the "many ... mass murderers" sheltered in Ireland after the war. I could name a few that found shelter in Britain but would never link the entire nation with Nazism because that would be simply stupid.

If you boil down what I wrote until only the essentials remain, you'll be left with: Britain had the means and the determination to defend her shores in 1940. Obviously my Jeremy Clarkson impression didn't go down well but I think your outpouring of itemised bigotry speaks for itself, frankly.

dduff

[Igo kyu]

He started it.
I don't think so at all.

He said he was 'Irish' as if it mattered to the debate (when in fact it does not)
If it didn't matter to you, why did you go on a mad tirade about it?

an assured sense of its own grandeur.

This is what got my goat, and whoever cried Racsim is barking up the wrong tree.
It was a general remark, and implicitly but specifically referenced Britain, Spain and Germany, not just Britain as you seem to have thought.

I don't need lectures from a people who actively supported Fascism ( as far back as Spain and the 'Irish Brigades' Military support of Franco, whom they fought for).
Not all irish people are active members of the IRA or whatever organisation it is you hate.

[KG26_Alpha]

Yawn

And my dads bigger than yours..................


Let return to the threads origins please.

[kendo65]

Decided to take this post off. Hopefully the situation is 'resolved'.

[kendo65]

...and just when I'd nailed Sternjaeger with my devastating logic ... ;)

Anyone want to get this thing back on track?

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Ach, "Bigmouth strikes again"

Once more, it is the *Evil Englishmans* *TM* fault. I'm getting 'gang banged' as well.

Good points made by a few (particularity Blackdog, I respect and admire your intelligent input) The truth is that I literally do not have the strength any more. I literally CANNOT BE BOTHERED. Go over tae Pakistan, Good Irishman, don't see a lot of you there.

Yer talking tae a Geordie, Bonny Lad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtJeI4Q9nBE

Peace be with you!

Yes, I come in peace, as me Fatha did before me

[dduff442]

In order to further the cause of understanding between nations I'll acknowledge that it took courage for Britain to refuse the peace (i.e. on German terms) offered by Hitler. The Battle of Britain is one of the headline moments in recent British history and the courage of the airmen and fortitude of the civilians should not be discounted.

The defining trauma of modern Britain was the Somme, however. These battles have different meanings to different people but it's Paschendaele, Ypres, Mons and the Somme that resonate most deeply today for most.

dduff

[ATAG_Dutch]

...and just when I'd nailed Sternjaeger with my devastating logic ... ;)
Anyone want to get this thing back on track?

Hey, what about me?:grin:

As it happens, I had the opportunity to watch James Holland's broadcast again last night.
On a second viewing, I wasn't as impressed as on the first.
I found myself wondering whether the Luftwaffe pilot's diary was genuine, as the paper looked brand new. Not another 'Hitler's Diary' thing, surely?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.

Also, the description of the 109's undoubted firepower was a bit misleading, as he made no distinction between the cannon's duration of fire relative to the m/g's, or the relative hitting power of eight m/g's relative to two once the cannon shells were gone, or how long two m/g's would need to be on target relative to eight in order to deliver the same punch.
I appreciate of course that it only takes one bullet to kill the pilot, or hole the cooling system, but the comparison was regarding firepower.

[kendo65]

Hey, what about me?:grin:

Ok, we'll 'share the glory' :)

As it happens, I had the opportunity to watch James Holland's broadcast again last night.
On a second viewing, I wasn't as impressed as on the first.
I found myself wondering whether the Luftwaffe pilot's diary was genuine, as the paper looked brand new. Not another 'Hitler's Diary' thing, surely?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.


I have it on tape myself - may well watch it again.

Also, the description of the 109's undoubted firepower was a bit misleading, as he made no distinction between the cannon's duration of fire relative to the m/g's, or the relative hitting power of eight m/g's relative to two once the cannon shells were gone, or how long two m/g's would need to be on target relative to eight in order to deliver the same punch.
I appreciate of course that it only takes one bullet to kill the pilot, or hole the cooling system, but the comparison was regarding firepower.

I'm still slightly of the opinion that the 109 was just ahead in 1940 - for the two reasons of fuel injection and cannon. As you say though there are many factors to take into account in comparing the armament.

Also, I know that the Merlin was fitted out with some device that largely remedied the negative g issue, but not sure if that was done before the end of the battle?

Fortunately whatever slight (technical) edge the 109 may have had it was not of a sufficient degree to be anywhere near decisive - the deciding factors in most situations being pilot skill and the tactical situation. Any reasonably experienced British pilot would maximise the superior turn rate of their aircraft and half roll to dive after 109s.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Also, I know that the Merlin was fitted out with some device that largely remedied the negative g issue, but not sure if that was done before the end of the battle?

'Miss Schillings Orifice' didn't appear until March 1941 as far as I can tell.
Beatrice Schilling was a scientist at Farnborough and designed a modification to the carburettor float amounting to a hole the size of a 'threepenny bit' punched through the float.
Having to invert prior to steep dives was necessary right up to this point.

I don't necessarily disagree about the 'Spit v 109' argument, but like I said previously, it depends on which yardstick you judge them by.
Using the 109's machine guns for sighting deflection shots prior to using the cannon would make a devastating combination. 55 seconds worth would allow for a great deal of sighting for cannon accuracy, assuming that the Spit or Hurri wasn't already beginning to use its tighter turning circle to make any deflection shot more and more difficult.
As a combination of weapons for a bounce attack without being observed....well I find out about this for myself all the time when online.:grin:

[kendo65]

The great thing is we're going to get the chance to check it out ourselves in 'x' months.



For optimists x=3
For pessimists x=6
For Tree x=15

sorry Tree ;)

[Splitter]

'Miss Schillings Orifice' didn't appear until March 1941 as far as I can tell.
Beatrice Schilling was a scientist at Farnborough and designed a modification to the carburettor float amounting to a hole the size of a 'threepenny bit' punched through the float.
Having to invert prior to steep dives was necessary right up to this point.

I don't necessarily disagree about the 'Spit v 109' argument, but like I said previously, it depends on which yardstick you judge them by.
Using the 109's machine guns for sighting deflection shots prior to using the cannon would make a devastating combination. 55 seconds worth would allow for a great deal of sighting for cannon accuracy, assuming that the Spit or Hurri wasn't already beginning to use its tighter turning circle to make any deflection shot more and more difficult.
As a combination of weapons for a bounce attack without being observed....well I find out about this for myself all the time when online.:grin:

From listening to a number of WWII fighter pilot interviews, it seems they were very afraid of the planes they DID NOT see. Conversely, they tried to sneak up on unwary opponents. I heard one recently say that the first time he knew, psychologically, that he was in combat was when his wingman was suddenly shot down and he never saw the enemy that did it, even after the fact. The same guy also said that it seemed like half the kills came when the victim never saw the enemy.

If that was the case, and I have no doubt it was, it would seem that maximum fire power at close range was the best thing an attacking fighter pilot could hope for.

With that being the case, I would choose two cannon over 8 .303's for maximum damage in a short period of time. Both were effective, but that would be a preference.

Splitter

[Sternjaeger]

cripes, I didnt visit the forum for a few days and look what happens.. it's a shame, it was such an interesting topic, but some bigot had to come in and ruin it..

feel free to PM me to continue the conversation guys.

SJ

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I need to apologise, to all and sundry.

I am truly sorry, I had a few Ales, and I HURT PEOPLE......I'M A D*CK *Parental Advisory video by the way*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvMduWKHNpY


Please forgive me Gentlemen, ach....What Evil have I done??

*Hangs head in shame*

[winny]

It's cool. I was just being over zealous
I decided to delete my earlier posts in this thread.
No hard feelings.

A Geordie drinking? Whatever next? ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

As far as i remember H-J Marseille, i.e., spent around 12 to 20 rounds of his 20mm and 40 to 80 rounds 7,92 mm from his Bf109F4 for a air victory.
But he was a exceptional sharpshooter, always targeting the centre where the pilot was.
What this low ammo expenditure made special is that he very often made successful high deflection shots.

From the documentary
Tom Neil @ 39:10

Re: 20mm

"2-3 shots"

12-20 for downing a bomber perhaps.

[Sternjaeger]

From the documentary
Tom Neil @ 39:10

Re: 20mm

"2-3 shots"

12-20 for downing a bomber perhaps.

I never really gave much credit on how many rounds it would take to shoot down a plane, there are so many factors involved that if you consider it under a simple physics point of view it's impossible to ascertain how many rounds it would take. Just to give you an example, there are at least two documented cases of Macchi 200 shooting down a B-17, and as you know they only had two 12.7mm machine guns that were actually crap, so go figure!

SJ

[Splitter]

Are we talking about how many are fired or how many hit?

I think it was the US that did a study in WWII that said that 4500 rounds had to be fired to bring down a plane. I am guessing they were talking about .50 cal since that was the standard (depends on when they did the study though). Obviously they weren't talking about how many hit the plane but about how many rounds were expanded in comparison to kills. Even then, that number sounds low.

In a single engine fighter, obviously one bullet could do the trick. In a bomber, with a co-pilot, there is obviously a much lower chance of one shot kills. That's why the Germans in particular kept experimenting with larger caliber cannons for bomber interception. (several countries did)

Bullets do strange things.

Splitter