Battle of Britain books. Recommendations?

[MB_Avro_UK]

May I suggest the following?:

The Most Dangerous Enemy. Author, Stephen Bungay.

I don't entirely agree with all his analysis, but his work is both fascinating and thought provoking. Enough to make you pause before turning the next page....

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac58/MB_Avro_UK/S5002472.jpg


Best Regards,
MB_Avro

[ElAurens]

Plowing through it currently.

Fascinating book IMHO.

[philip.ed]

Has anyone read Fighter Boys? How does it compare, as I have never got around to reading Bungay's work, but I've heard nothing but glowing reports on it.
I plan to read Invasion 1940 (Derek Robinson) within the next few weeks. Has anyone read this piece? I've been told that Robinson's analysis is characteristically controversial, but it's always interesting to read different views on the battle.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Most Dangerous Enemy - Essential reading. Best BoB book ever in my view, covers every aspect from leadership to technology to manufacturing output to aircraft to politics to the men themselves, in a very objective but easily readable way.

Fighter boys - also very good book focussing mainly on the men themselves, from Albert Ball, Mannock, McCudden to Malan, Stanford Tuck and many lesser known pilots, many of whom were killed, but left diaries.

First Light - Nothing need be said here I think.

Johnny Kent - 'One of the Few' great stories of building his own aircraft as a youth in Canada to death defying Test Piloting at Farnborough to leading 303 Polish Squadron, 92 Squadron and a lot of interesting post-war stuff.

Spitfire Story - Alfred Price, if you want the story of the aircraft itself.

Not read Bob Doe's book or Brian Kingcombe's and many others but will get there eventually! :)

Derek Robinson touched on his views on the invasion in his novel 'Piece of Cake' but I've not read Invasion 1940.

[philip.ed]

Doe's was very good! The only book I have read which I really didn't like was Hillary's. What a horrible character he was, I really couldn't stand him, and if it wasn't for his later sobering revelations, I'd have been close to shelving the book out of distaste.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The only book I have read which I really didn't like was Hillary's.

That surprises me. It was next on my list and is supposed to be a classic.

In fact, you've peaked my interest. Might see if I can get a copy tomorrow.:)

[MB_Avro_UK]

Most Dangerous Enemy - Essential reading. Best BoB book ever in my view, covers every aspect from leadership to technology to manufacturing output to aircraft to politics to the men themselves, in a very objective but easily readable way.

Fighter boys - also very good book focussing mainly on the men themselves, from Albert Ball, Mannock, McCudden to Malan, Stanford Tuck and many lesser known pilots, many of whom were killed, but left diaries.

First Light - Nothing need be said here I think.

Johnny Kent - 'One of the Few' great stories of building his own aircraft as a youth in Canada to death defying Test Piloting at Farnborough to leading 303 Polish Squadron, 92 Squadron and a lot of interesting post-war stuff.

Spitfire Story - Alfred Price, if you want the story of the aircraft itself.

Not read Bob Doe's book or Brian Kingcombe's and many others but will get there eventually! :)

Derek Robinson touched on his views on the invasion in his novel 'Piece of Cake' but I've not read Invasion 1940.

I have a signed copy of Bob Doe's book. An honest and modest Ace in my view. He died recently. He received little recognition until a few years ago. He had to work hard all his life to make ends meet financially.

He would have been better off as a Premier Division Footballer and made far more money.

C'est la vie...


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Buzpilot]

Lots of BoB E-books here.

http://www.wiredshelf.com/search/?query=Battle+of+Britain&category=0&x=77&y=20

[MB_Avro_UK]

Plowing through it currently.

Fascinating book IMHO.

It's a fine read. He doesn't pull any punches.

He starts the book by saying that he was sitting in his deck-chair in his garden in Kent (Southern England,Battle of Britain area), and when looking up to the sky, he realised that he was viewing a 1940 battle-field.

He mentions an interview in 1945 by the Russians with the head of the captured German Whermacht. The Russians asked him as to what he saw as the turning point in German's fortunes in WW2. The Ruissians expected him to say Stalingrad. But he said the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Russians left.

And only 5,000 were killed on both sides during the Battle of Britain. Is this figure similar to Midway? Another turning point.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[philip.ed]

That surprises me. It was next on my list and is supposed to be a classic.

In fact, you've peaked my interest. Might see if I can get a copy tomorrow.:)

I know, I was saddened by his brutal honesty about his own character. Maybe I was too young when I read it? I know a friend who said that he read it when he was younger, and hated his character, but went back to re-read it when he was older and understood Hillary's pain and discontent.
It's certainly worth a read, but I didn't enjoy it as much as any other personal account I've read.
But don't let me put you off! (or, rather, put you on :cool: )

[Sternjaeger II]

If you want an accurate and up to date read I would suggest "The Battle of Britain" by James Holland, and for an interesting German counterpart "Spitfire over my tail" by Ulrich Steinhilper.

[winny]

If you want an accurate and up to date read I would suggest "The Battle of Britain" by James Holland, and for an interesting German counterpart "Spitfire over my tail" by Ulrich Steinhilper.

James Hollands book is my favourite, good call.

If you can find a hardback copy of Patrick Bishop's Battle of Britain it's well worth it, it's a day by day account of the battle, full colour, one of those nice things to own.

[Kurfürst]

In addition to the above, these ones, for a in depth German background on the BoB:

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-051.pdf
http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-052.pdf
http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-055.pdf

From: http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies151-200.asp

[Sternjaeger II]

James Hollands book is my favourite, good call.

If you can find a hardback copy of Patrick Bishop's Battle of Britain it's well worth it, it's a day by day account of the battle, full colour, one of those nice things to own.

Yep,it is widely regarded as the best book on the topic,many universities suggest it as a study reference as well.

[Moggy]

Derek Robinson touched on his views on the invasion in his novel 'Piece of Cake' but I've not read Invasion 1940.

Dutch, I've got Derek Robinson's Invasion 1940 (well most of his books actually). Although he makes a convincing argument about German intentions, I don't agree with him. Well worth a read if you're into his style of writing...which I am.

[MB_Avro_UK]

In addition to the above, these ones, for a in depth German background on the BoB:

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-051.pdf
http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-052.pdf
http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090518-055.pdf

From: http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies151-200.asp

Many thanks. Very useful reading.

[PeterPanPan]

Brian Lane's Spitfire! is an excellent read, written shortly before his death in 1942.

PPP

[Catseye]

Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend.
You know, the Peter Townsend that was a Hurri pilot and was an item with Princess Margaret back in the day.

Very detailed timelines comparing both sides. The development of the individuals, attitudes, systems, aircraft and the marrying of these individuals when they met in combat.

This is an excellent read IMHO. Far beyond the norm as it is written by a person who experienced it and who has a gripping narative combined with very detailed information from both sides.

Cheers

[ATAG_Dutch]

Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend.
You know, the Peter Townsend that was a Hurri pilot and was an item with Princess Ann back in the day.

Think you mean Princess Margaret, but good book ref thanks! :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Dutch, I've got Derek Robinson's Invasion 1940 (well most of his books actually). Although he makes a convincing argument about German intentions, I don't agree with him. Well worth a read if you're into his style of writing...which I am.

Thanks Moggy (where did you get that name? Always had my suspicions!), I am also. I actually prefer Goshawk Squadron to Piece of Cake and must get the prequels sometime.

[Mr_Steven]

Wing Leader by Johnnie Johnson, phenomenal.

Really cool part about when they first encounter Focke Wulf 190's and nobody has any idea what the hell they are.

[philip.ed]

Thanks Moggy (where did you get that name? Always had my suspicions!), I am also. I actually prefer Goshawk Squadron to Piece of Cake and must get the prequels sometime.

The prequels are brilliant! I read it in that order too, Dutch (Goshawk Squadron, then War Story and then Hornets Sting). BTW, if I were you, I'd buy Hornets Sting from Robinson directly. He self publishes now, which is far cheaper than the £60 Amazon charges! (he has his own website).

[kendo65]

A favourite of mine is The Hardest Day by Alfred Price. It's a bit different in that it's an in-depth account of one day - 18th August 1940 - told from perspective of both sides with a great sense of drama (there's a great account of the low-level raid on Kenley by Do17s).

Bungay reused some of the material in his book (also a great read)

[ATAG_Dutch]

The prequels are brilliant! I read it in that order too, Dutch (Goshawk Squadron, then War Story and then Hornets Sting). BTW, if I were you, I'd buy Hornets Sting from Robinson directly. He self publishes now, which is far cheaper than the £60 Amazon charges! (he has his own website).

Yep I know philip thanks.:)

Was on his website recently. I really like his approach to all of this stuff.

I registered with Rise of Flight as 'Major Woolley' funnily enough, and after a couple of times flying online, someone asked me, 'not Major Stanley Woolley?'

I answered 'the very same!'.

He responded with 'Honoured to meet you sir!'

I said 'Bugger off.' Which I thought was appropriate!:grin:

[philip.ed]

Yep I know philip thanks.:)

Was on his website recently. I really like his approach to all of this stuff.

I registered with Rise of Flight as 'Major Woolley' funnily enough, and after a couple of times flying online, someone asked me, 'not Major Stanley Woolley?'

I answered 'the very same!'.

He responded with 'Honoured to meet you sir!'

I said 'Bugger off.' Which I thought was appropriate!:grin:

Hahaha LOL that's excellent :grin: *fighting the temptation to give away elements of Wooley's earlier character* :cool:

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Brian Lane's Spitfire! is an excellent read, written shortly before his death in 1942.

PPP

+100
Absolute gem of a book,written from his memoirs during the big aerial fight of 1940.

[Moggy]

The prequels are brilliant! I read it in that order too, Dutch (Goshawk Squadron, then War Story and then Hornets Sting). BTW, if I were you, I'd buy Hornets Sting from Robinson directly. He self publishes now, which is far cheaper than the £60 Amazon charges! (he has his own website).

I love the WWI book series as well, they just ooze Derek Robinson!

Strangely enough though, I never got on with the Piece of cake TV series made. It just lacked a certain something (Hurricanes aside) which the book captured brilliantly.

[philip.ed]

I love the WWI book series as well, they just ooze Derek Robinson!

Strangely enough though, I never got on with the Piece of cake TV series made. It just lacked a certain something (Hurricanes aside) which the book captured brilliantly.

Funnily enough, it was the serious that led me to the books! I mean the book itself far exceeds the series, but I loved watching the series, and I still have the VHS box-set (which I have since upgraded to DVD). I know that many people couldn't get along with the characters, including certain veterans, and until Paul Richey passed away, there was an ongoing lawsuit with Robinson regarding the event where Hart's props snap (which Richey's lawyer claimed was taken from his book).
Whilst on the subject, Paul Richey's book is another brilliant read too (funnily enough, I was able to pick up the original version qute cheaply, and it's intersting to see how all the names are blanked out because of the war).

[winny]

One more BoB book that's nice to own (you probably won't learn anything new)

The Battle of Britain Experience : Richard Overy
I scanned the back of the box it comes in to give you an idea...

It's main difference is it's facsimille documents. There are loads not mentioned on the back. Might be worth a look if you can find it.
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/BoBPicture.jpg

[Old_Canuck]

Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend.
You know, the Peter Townsend that was a Hurri pilot and was an item with Princess Ann back in the day.

Very detailed timelines comparing both sides. The development of the individuals, attitudes, systems, aircraft and the marrying of these individuals when they met in combat.

This is an excellent read IMHO. Far beyond the norm as it is written by a person who experienced it and who has a gripping narative combined with very detailed information from both sides.

Cheers

+1 .. reading the second half of this book at present. It's a good one. :-)

[Catseye]

+1 .. reading the second half of this book at present. It's a good one. :-)

Not sure whether you've gotten to the part yet where he downs a Ju88 describes the mess the crew had in getting out after crash landing and how shot up they were and then visiting them in the hospital. A very special moment.

[Ali Fish]

are any of the books mentioned through these pages available on the amazon kindle ?

[Anvilfolk]

This is great stuff all... I might just have to get...... all of them! When time/money allows, of course!


I will put in another vote for Stephen Bungay's book. Very thorough - although I admit I do not have too much to compare with. I recall it being different in content than Fighter Boys, and so they complement each other. I do have to say that I found Bungay to be cynical and arrogant to the point of rudeness, callousness and insult in points. I recall one part where he had just presented the enthusiasm of a young german pilot through a letter/diary, and summarily said he needn't have worried about the Luftwaffe "winning" so much since he died a couple of days later. I personally don't think hindsight gives you the right to be "smug" about these deaths, but your mileage may vary.

I recently read Michael Korda's "With Wings Like Eagles" and found it very shallow, repetitive, overly pretentious/grandiloquent with gigantic convoluted sentences - making it a somewhat good read for an overview. I tend to get lost when books go too deep into detail at each point. This one lets you keep the overview.

I also read "A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron" by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud. It's a strange book - the first half is about the Polish airforce and the Kosciuszko Squadron in particular, about the attack on Poland, the pilots' adventure to England, subsequent training and eventually being allowed into combat, becoming the highest scoring squadron for the BoB. The other half is about the history of Poland, before and during the war - hence not about flying at all, except occasional glimpses of the pilots' reaction to different events. It is very, very clear that the authors are quite biased, and that the book is not objective. Sometimes I felt it so strongly that I even had doubts about the veracity of some claims, but do not know enough to ascertain it myself. That being said, I will not hesitate to recommend this to anyone - it provides an amazing view of international politics as they regarded Poland, and of the horrors that the Polish people was forced to endure at the hands of Axis and Allies alike. I was in tears through most of it, but I'm a big cry-baby. It is a story that should not be forgotten. I would also be extremely interested in hearing other opinions on this book.

Thanks for all the great recommendations :)

[xnomad]

I do have to say that I found Bungay to be cynical and arrogant to the point of rudeness, callousness and insult in points. I recall one part where he had just presented the enthusiasm of a young german pilot through a letter/diary, and summarily said he needn't have worried about the Luftwaffe "winning" so much since he died a couple of days later. I personally don't think hindsight gives you the right to be "smug" about these deaths, but your mileage may vary.


I thoroughly enjoyed the book as well but couldn't help feel that he had trouble staying impartial. The example above was the first time it hit me. He also couldn't stay neutral with his opinions on Galland and Wick either. I recall he also said German's had no moral courage etc. Which is generalising and not taking all the facts into account. It's bad when you notice a bias as you wonder if it has affected the way he is presenting the facts.

I'm half British half German so my bias swings back and forth. :-D

[Moggy]

One more BoB book that's nice to own (you probably won't learn anything new)

The Battle of Britain Experience : Richard Overy
I scanned the back of the box it comes in to give you an idea...

It's main difference is it's facsimille documents. There are loads not mentioned on the back. Might be worth a look if you can find it.


Thanks for the recommendation, it's available at The Works for £6! Have ordered a copy.

https://www.theworks.co.uk/product.asp?cid=11&pid=6230

[winny]

Thanks for the recommendation, it's available at The Works for £6! Have ordered a copy.

https://www.theworks.co.uk/product.asp?cid=11&pid=6230

£6!

Well worth it, if only for the Giant map!

[BRIGGBOY]

are any of the books mentioned through these pages available on the amazon kindle ?

yes iam currently reading first light on my kindle app for my phone. pretty much all of amazons books are available on kindle

[zoopyzook]

May I suggest the following?:

The Most Dangerous Enemy. Author, Stephen Bungay.

I don't entirely agree with all his analysis, but his work is both fascinating and thought provoking. Enough to make you pause before turning the next page....

http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac58/MB_Avro_UK/S5002472.jpg


Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Halfway through reading this, seems an excellent read


are any of the books mentioned through these pages available on the amazon kindle ?

and i am reading it on the Kindle :)

[jayrc]

"The Few" by Alex Kershaw is a great book :cool:

[Sternjaeger]

Bungay is a dick, period.

[ElAurens]

Bungay is a dick, period.


Very insightful...

:rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger]

Very insightful...

:rolleyes:

I know, I'm renown for my insightful reviews...

That's what several historians think of him, it's a sort of common knowledge in the sector, and the way he writes is the reason of this judgement. I never met him personally, but according to a close friend who met him at a book signing event he apparently fits the bill of the typical "we English won the war cos we're better, period" delusional individuals.

[lane]

I loved Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy. I've lost track of how many times I've read through it. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the Battle of Britain. About a month ago I purchased and read through his Alamein, not because I have any great interest in the ground war (although it was more than that), just because I appreciated Bungay's writing. That's a pretty good read too - he didn't sugar coat that one either from the British/Commonwealth perspective.

[whoarmongar]

Lonely Warrior. Jean Offenberg

I mention this book as it was the first book on the BoB I ever read, my well thumbed copy has long ago disapeared, however it lives long in my memory. Since then I have read many books on the subject but non have resonated with me as much as this one.
Its also good to remember how many pilots of other nationalities served within the RAF in those fateful days.

[lane]

Lonely Warrior. Jean Offenberg

I mention this book as it was the first book on the BoB I ever read, my well thumbed copy has long ago disapeared, however it lives long in my memory. Since then I have read many books on the subject but non have resonated with me as much as this one.
Its also good to remember how many pilots of other nationalities served within the RAF in those fateful days.

Thanks for the recommendation! I hadn't heard of that book. I just ordered a used copy from AbeBooks - very inexpensive! :)

[Anvilfolk]

I know, I'm renown for my insightful reviews...

That's what several historians think of him, it's a sort of common knowledge in the sector, and the way he writes is the reason of this judgement. I never met him personally, but according to a close friend who met him at a book signing event he apparently fits the bill of the typical "we English won the war cos we're better, period" delusional individuals.

I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.

Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.

Thanks for any further info!

[No1 Cheese]

Lonely Warrior is a must!!!
Sternjaeger hope you dont mind me asking but whats your age and where are you from?

Cheese

[ATAG_Dutch]

That's what several historians think of him, it's a sort of common knowledge in the sector, and the way he writes is the reason of this judgement. I never met him personally, but according to a close friend who met him at a book signing event he apparently fits the bill of the typical "we English won the war cos we're better, period" delusional individuals.

Then neither you nor your so called historians or your close friend have read the book thoroughly enough, as it's precisely that sort of propagandist claptrap that Bungay sets out to disprove, on both sides.

Nor would any Englishman, to my knowledge, end a sentence with the word 'period'. It's called a 'full stop' here.

'Periods' are something else entirely.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Bungay is a dick, period.

You really know how to draw attention to yourself don't you.

:rolleyes: period.

[Al Schlageter]

Bungay is a dick, period.

So is Christer Bergström but he does put out good books.

[Sternjaeger II]

I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.

Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.

Thanks for any further info!

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.

Lonely Warrior is a must!!!
Sternjaeger hope you dont mind me asking but whats your age and where are you from?

Cheese

I'm 31 and live in England.

Then neither you nor your so called historians or your close friend have read the book thoroughly enough, as it's precisely that sort of propagandist claptrap that Bungay sets out to disprove, on both sides.

Nor would any Englishman, to my knowledge, end a sentence with the word 'period'. It's called a 'full stop' here.

'Periods' are something else entirely.

I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?

You really know how to draw attention to yourself don't you.

:rolleyes: period.

I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..

So is Christer Bergström but he does put out good books.

Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music :rolleyes:

[Al Schlageter]

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

Some destroyers and light cruisers is not the RN Fleet. There was no need to bring in the big guns, the BBs. The LW certainly didn't have naval night fighting capability.

Operation Merkur was a success because of British mistakes and was very close to not being a successful operation.

[winny]

The problem I found with Bungay's book was that I was very aware of him whilst reading it, if you get what I mean.

It felt a bit like a vehicle for Bungay more than a book on the BoB..

I prefer James Holland's, it's the most balanced BoB book I've read.

I do find that when Bungay's on TV I don't particularlly like him. He likes himself a lot though...

[Kurfürst]

The problem I found with Bungay's book was that I was very aware of him whilst reading it, if you get what I mean.

It felt a bit like a vehicle for Bungay more than a book on the BoB..

I prefer James Holland's, it's the most balanced BoB book I've read.

I do find that when Bungay's on TV I don't particularlly like him. He likes himself a lot though...

I very much agree with that. The book is not badly written, although his conclusions are sometimes simply go against logic and the sources. In particular his most popular claim that the LW was loosing in the attrition war was based on his misunderstanding of an old force curve found ie. in Wood and Dempster about the LW frontline strenght in Western Europe, showing a steady decline towards the winter, esp. bombers. Bungay ingeniously concluded they were running out of aircraft - something quite different than how many aircraft they deployed in France - a notion very easy to check against the actual total LW strenght returns of bombers, for example via Murray's old Strategy for Defeat book, which show they had a steady around 1400 bombers during the whole battle, +/- 20, even increasing somewhat towards the end. Such lazyness in research and the hunger for sensation against careful research..

However what disturbes me the most is that he and the media has sort of made a gloria above his head about all this "fresh look" nonsense, when in effect his book has absolutely nothing new about it. He merely repeat the same stuff the British historian/researcher pioneers dug up and wrote in the 1950/1960s. Then he wrote his own conclusions, which are 95% the same as previous authors. Fresh look my ass.. the guy is not even a historian, never studied as one, never researched as one, he studied various nonsense than worked in the commercial field all his life. All he did was compile the previous works of others and add his own thoughts about it, some of which are good, and well thought out indeed, some of them just pure journalist nonsense, and then this guy gets shown on documentaries as some kind of 'leading expert' of the case. He wrote a readable best seller, based on the works of others.

[Sternjaeger]

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.



I'm 31 and live in England.



I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?



I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..



Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music :rolleyes:

Kurfurst, I will have to name you my official spokesperson, you nailed it ;-)

[Sternjaeger]

Some destroyers and light cruisers is not the RN Fleet. There was no need to bring in the big guns, the BBs. The LW certainly didn't have naval night fighting capability.


it is all relative, you have to bear in mind that losing and replacing a battleship is not as replacing a tank. The risk of losing so much tonnage of battleship to sink landing crafts or motorboats would have been high.

The biggest disadvantage with the use of the Navy is that you're putting a lot at stake, and the Luftwaffe would have surely quickly found a way to do night operations. Plus let's not forget that the Kriegsmarine could have poured in the soup some of their U-Boote to make things more thrilling at night.. it could have gone awfully different.


Operation Merkur was a success because of British mistakes and was very close to not being a successful operation.

Exactly, just like the Battle of Britain, but it was the Germans who made the mistakes this time.

[Al Schlageter]

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393

which show they had a steady around 1400 bombers during the whole battle, +/- 20, even increasing somewhat towards the end

That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

[Sternjaeger]

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393



That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

Erm, Hitler put a stop to it all in September, concentrating on the preparation of the Operation Barbarossa, a logistic strain way much bigger than the Battle of Britain. Operation Seeloewe wasn't lost according to the Germans, was just put on hold.

[Kurfürst]

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393

That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

"Missed" something in Strategy for Defeat between April and October, perhaps? Battle of France, maybe?

Strenght 4.5.1940: 1758 bombers
Strenght 29.6.1940: 1380 bombers

So the whole story, bomber strenght in 1940:

April 1940 - 1,726 bombers
Strenght 4.5.1940: 1758 bombers
29.6.1940: 1380 bombers
29.9.1940 - 1,420
2.11.1940 - 1,423
30.11.1940 - 1,393

Source: Strategy for Defeat, Table IX, Table X, Table XI.

In short the Battle of France, though short but very intesive was what that decreased German bomber numbers, the Battle of Britain did not decreased them at all in comparison, whatever Bungay wants to tell.

[Al Schlageter]

it is all relative, you have to bear in mind that losing and replacing a battleship is not as replacing a tank. The risk of losing so much tonnage of battleship to sink landing crafts or motorboats would have been high.

The biggest disadvantage with the use of the Navy is that you're putting a lot at stake, and the Luftwaffe would have surely quickly found a way to do night operations. Plus let's not forget that the Kriegsmarine could have poured in the soup some of their U-Boote to make things more thrilling at night.. it could have gone awfully different.



Exactly, just like the Battle of Britain, but it was the Germans who made the mistakes this time.

Delusional. The BBs were not required to scupper the German invasion fleet. The LW were that quick learners and implementers to overpower the destroyers and light cruisers in a few days?

[Al Schlageter]

The Germans still could not replace their bomber losses Barbi to the April numbers. They were still short by ~300 of their strength in April at the end of 1940. And the numbers down slight, in contrast to you claim of a slight increase.

[Kurfürst]

Well the point is that as opposed to Bungay's claims, the German bomber losses were not prohibitive at all during BoB. They could just replace what they lost, and could keep the pace of operations until the World would end.

"And the numbers down slight, in contrast to you claim of a slight increase."

1380 bombers at the start of the Battle, 1423 bombers at the time the British consider the Battle to have ended. You must be a wizz with maths.

[Sternjaeger]

Delusional. The BBs were not required to scupper the German invasion fleet. The LW were that quick learners and implementers to overpower the destroyers and light cruisers in a few days?

I think your belief that the Germans couldn't carry on with the operation and eventually cause some serious ballache is delusional.. thank God Hitler was a bit ADD..

The Kriegsmarine U-Boote at night would have minced the Royal Navy ships in such a confined space and being so close to their bases..

[Anvilfolk]

Thanks Sternjaeger, for clarifying your opinion. That first post of yours wasn't much help :)

This certainly makes me reevaluate my ideas about the BoB. However, while you are discussing planes, I am thinking about pilots. It's perfectly possibly that Germany had enough production power to keep a relatively stable number of bombers, but what about bomber crews? They take much longer to train, and efficiency increases with experience. Was the loss of pilots and aircrew a problem?

I understand that the RAF was having serious problems - while the number of pilots might have increased (I think I read this in Bungay's book), they had virtually no training. Given that, they were usually shot down just as fast as they came into operational squadrons. And because the battle was fought over Britain, the RAF had a great advantage in keeping pilots in the battle.

Might that have been an argument in favour of Bungay's idea?

[Sternjaeger]

Thanks Sternjaeger, for clarifying your opinion. That first post of yours wasn't much help :)

This certainly makes me reevaluate my ideas about the BoB. However, while you are discussing planes, I am thinking about pilots. It's perfectly possibly that Germany had enough production power to keep a relatively stable number of bombers, but what about bomber crews? They take much longer to train, and efficiency increases with experience. Was the loss of pilots and aircrew a problem?

It's a relative problem, and pilots' shortage became an issue only in late 1943. The idea is that the only highly trained members of crew were pilot officers, while the rest of the crew (gunners, bombers, radio operators), were quicker and cheaper to train.

During the Battle of Britain German pilots were also doped with benzedrine, it came in little sheets that were diluted in their coffee to keep them alert and awake for longer, and considering the short distance to fly, a crew could fly for at least two sorties a day.

The RAF was no better, giving amphetamines to their pilots..


I understand that the RAF was having serious problems - while the number of pilots might have increased (I think I read this in Bungay's book), they had virtually no training. Given that, they were usually shot down just as fast as they came into operational squadrons. And because the battle was fought over Britain, the RAF had a great advantage in keeping pilots in the battle.

Might that have been an argument in favour of Bungay's idea?

That's typical Bungay: the number of pilots increased (and I'm not even sure about that) cos they gave wings to guys with just 250 flying hours. Truth is that the RAF had a dramatic shortage of pilots throughout the whole conflict, that's why they outsourced pilots from allied countries and the commonwealth.

The most successful squadrons during the Battle of Britain were the Polish and Czech ones, which had a far superior training than their British counterparts, and despite these skilled pilots it took a lot of trial and error before the RAF fighter groups were actually effective against the Luftwaffe. They didn't learn much from the French campaign, there was a somewhat banterish atmosphere (well portrayed in "Piece of Cake") which hit the grim reality when fighter planes were shot down like flies over the Channel.

Another aspect is that many shot down pilots were horribly injured (many suffered terrible burns due to the stupid positioning of the fuselage fuel tank) and not fit to get back in the fight.

It was a close call, and again it was lost by the Germans, not won by the RAF.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I never said I am an Englishman

Nor did I. I was referring to the 'we English won the war because we're superior, period' rubbish.

[Sternjaeger]

Nor did I. I was referring to the 'we English won the war because we're superior, period' rubbish.

I completely agree, it's rubbish.

God knows how many "sunday historians" I met that jolly argued that WW2 was won by the Spitfire.. Bungay is a sort of elaborated version of these muppets, trying to give a revisionist version based on nothing..

[ATAG_Dutch]

Bungay is a sort of elaborated version of these muppets, trying to give a revisionist version based on nothing..

Ok, ok, I get it, you don't like the book or the writer.

Now can we get back to recommending books rather than hijacking the thread with another endless tirade?

Cheers

[Sternjaeger]

Ok, ok, I get it, you don't like the book or the writer.

Now can we get back to recommending books rather than hijacking the thread with another endless tirade?

Cheers

Absolutely ;)

"Nine Lives" by Alan C Deere, superb read!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Absolutely ;)

"Nine Lives" by Alan C Deere, superb read!

Thankyou Stern, good call, not read this one either.

[Sternjaeger]

Thankyou Stern, good call, not read this one either.

This guy has seen it all, a v good read indeed.

[kendo65]

Absolutely ;)

"Nine Lives" by Alan C Deere, superb read!

It's good - I reread it recently. Well named too - he was shot down a lot of times!

Written in the 50s and in the intervening years some words have taken on a slightly different meaning. i had to laugh when he described having a 'really gay time' on leave in London. Think he also referred to New York as the 'gayest city' he'd ever visited.

But a good read alright.

[Jack Morris]

"Spitfire Pilot" by David Crook is a fantastic Read! Especially the one wheeled landing bit!

But let me set the record straight.. in my opinion.. the GREATEST first hand account of the battle.. with some of the pages having you in fits of laughter.. and others bringing you close to tears is...

"Life's Too Short To Cry" by Tim Vigors

He is an amazing character that you get to know as the book goes on.. once driving through Battle of Britain country on the south coast of England.. my father said.. there you go.. couldn't you just imagine Time doing a flypast in his beloved Spitfire chasing a 109.. and I really could.. S!

Jack

P.S kendo.. childish but i couldn't help but snigger hehe