The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

This thread needs some lulz...no disrespect, take it for what it is.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp161/neal1972/Worldwar2RTS.gif

Hahaha! Classic.

Reminds me of this one:

http://youtu.be/Jib7aQBpcAM

[Rattlehead]

Hahaha! Classic.

Reminds me of this one:

http://youtu.be/Jib7aQBpcAM

:grin: That's excellent!

[JimmyBlonde]

Apparently if you manage to find any information that backs up your argument it is just rubbished as baseless propaganda, to be honest I am standing my ground because I have found an overwhelming amount of literature that states the battle of Britain was germanys first defeat.

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.

"The colossus of World War II seemed to be like a pyramid turned upside down, and for the moment the whole burden of the war rested on the few hundred German fighter pilots on the Channel coast. "

Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.

"...from the strategic point of view it was a failure and contributed to our ultimate defeat. The decision to fight it marks a turning point in the history of the Second World War. The German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the war."

General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:

"The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base from which war against Germany can be continued and, if necessary, to occupy completely. "

Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:

"1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment. "

Clearly not accomplished.


As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I agree.

There's evidence in the documented behavior of Hitler (losing faith in and complaining about the Luftwaffe after Dunkirk/BoB), Goering (making accusations of cowardice against his own fliers), the reassignments at OKL (Kesselring being shunted to the Med to provide token support for Italian failures) and the attitudes of German airmen (Typified by Adolf Galland's Squadron of Spitfires remarks).

Clearly the reassignment of strategic priorities relating to Operation Sealion was not without some sense of 'loss' attached to it. The fact that Germany was forced, by RAF resistance, to re-evaluate their strategic plan also provides evidence that a defeat occurred and caused a setback which was considered insurmountable in light of other strategic priorities. Then there is the cumulative effect which the loss of resources had on future operations which is hard to estimate in concrete terms but can't be disregarded.

All of that is common knowledge which requires no reference. Some of it is interpretative or subjective but, overall, enough circumstantial evidence is present to make a convincing case for the argument that Germany (and thereby the Luftwaffe) was defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Further supplements to this argument can be found by quoting the Luftwaffe personnel themselves.



Adolph Galland in reference to BoB, clearly he felt that something was at stake during the campaign.



General Werner Kreipe.

And by their operational orders.

The stated aim of Sealion:



Clearly not accomplished.

The stated aim of the Luftwaffe:



Clearly not accomplished.


As far as I am concerned the reality of history weighed against those stated strategic aims is more than enough proof that Germany lost the battle. Whatever back-pedalling the Nazis did to make things look more palatable, or whatever pillow humping the Propagandists of Whitehall did to make their triumph look conclusive, is irrelevant.

To conclude:

When you set out to do something you can either succeed or fail in your endeavor.

Those are the only two possible outcomes.

Being given cause to renege on your original course of action and adopt another indicates a realisation that your original desired outcome can not be achieved which is a failure in it's own right whether in the soundness of your plan or the method in which you implemented it.

Nazi Germany clearly stated their desire to subdue Britain by force and tasked the Luftwaffe with carrying out the initial stages of that plan. A determined attempt was made by the Luftwaffe to do so in which they failed which is proven by the fact that their objectives were not met.

This is, regardless of interpretation, and in any sense of the word, a defeat.

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

[#402FOX]

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game;)

[JimmyBlonde]

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

[Bewolf]

Its a sad state of affairs when reading this thread is more fun than the game;)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r316/MACDD/birdfight-1.gif

[Sternjaeger II]

Jimmy, I appreciate your input, it would be useful if you could give the source of your quotes though.

I came to the conclusion that there will never be an agreement about the outcome of the aerial battle of 1940, that's why I regard it as a draw.

The most obvious fact is that Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected, Britain managed to defend his status quo of non invaded country (apart for the small Channel islands).

This can obviously look as a blatant victory of the RAF, but there's more into it than just this conclusion.

The aerial battle that raged over the Channel and England was in a certain way a war of attrition: the frontline didn't move, the two contending parts threw their best air force capabilities, but without a proper defeat of either of the sides, just a weakening of their potential.

Focussing on the simple fact that the Germans didn't achieve what they wanted with the Operatio Sea Lion doesn't change the fact that it's Great Britain who paid the heavier toll, because of the extended bombing damage, other than the RAF losses. It's hard to consider that a win.

I believe that it (rightly) became a matter of national pride, which is completely understandable, but the connotation of victory is hardly the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain was just an attack on a siege situation, if we talk about winning the war then I couldn't agree more, but the Battle of Britain (again, mistakenly named so), was just an early attack wave against a fortification, which surely went monumentally wrong, but it wasn't there that the whole war was lost.

[Sternjaeger II]

They abandoned their plan to invade England and continued with their other campaigns.

it was formally never abandoned.. Hitler was still blabbering about invading Great Britain in 1944..

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Right. So.....how did they cope with it?

What do you mean with "cope with it"?

I think the Nazi propaganda machine tried to convince the people that the campaign was successful (don't forget that after the failed BoB, there has been the Blitz and after the Blitz frequent incursions of low level attacks if I remember well) so possibly the broad public was not much informed about an eventual defeat or whatever name you want to give it. And soon public attention turned towards other theatres of war. So from the point of view public opinion might not have been much affected apart from those secretly listening to BBC and not taking BBC programme for too much of a propaganda itself.

About the military, I cannot tell.

In terms of planning:
Well, I guess Hitler hoped that wiping the SU off the maps (which was likely his primary goal anyway) would take away one potential ally for GB and hoping to keep GB on their island until he had finished Stalin so a two front war could be avoided (the initial motivation for seeking a decision in the West first). It might have worked if the campaign in Russia would have ended in a German victory (not likely in hindsight imho).

Beowulf: This clip is fantastic. Lol, all the remaining sparrows are so curious and want to see the end of the fight. Lol. Good find

[JimmyBlonde]

Jimmy, I appreciate your input, it would be useful if you could give the source of your quotes though.

I came to the conclusion that there will never be an agreement about the outcome of the aerial battle of 1940, that's why I regard it as a draw.

The most obvious fact is that Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected, Britain managed to defend his status quo of non invaded country (apart for the small Channel islands).

This can obviously look as a blatant victory of the RAF, but there's more into it than just this conclusion.

The aerial battle that raged over the Channel and England was in a certain way a war of attrition: the frontline didn't move, the two contending parts threw their best air force capabilities, but without a proper defeat of either of the sides, just a weakening of their potential.

Focussing on the simple fact that the Germans didn't achieve what they wanted with the Operatio Sea Lion doesn't change the fact that it's Great Britain who paid the heavier toll, because of the extended bombing damage, other than the RAF losses. It's hard to consider that a win.

I believe that it (rightly) became a matter of national pride, which is completely understandable, but the connotation of victory is hardly the outcome of the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain was just an attack on a siege situation, if we talk about winning the war then I couldn't agree more, but the Battle of Britain (again, mistakenly named so), was just an early attack wave against a fortification, which surely went monumentally wrong, but it wasn't there that the whole war was lost.

Being lazy I tried to keep the quotes in the realm of common knowledge to avoid specific referencing. The Adolf Galland quote is probably from "Die Erste und Die Leszte" and I don't know where the Kreipe quote came from in particular but it is a well known and commonly used one.

In regards to the rest of your post, the OP did not ask if the Battle of Britain was a victory for the RAF which makes your points, though logically sound enough to be debatable, contextually irrelevant. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate which doesn't have any bearing on the point under discussion in this thread.

But...

The primary motivation of the RAF and Britain itself in 1939-41 was to play for time and to survive. The goal of any besieged faction who cannot mount an offensive of their own.

They achieved those aims, although at great cost, and I would call that a victory but given the decline of the British Empire in subsequent decades and the recent resurgence of right wing nationalism it might have been a Pyrrhic victory as you suggest.

[Al Schlageter]

If "Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected", then Germany lost and GB won, PERIOD.

Germany lost 1,922 aircraft (including 879 fighters, 80 Stukas and 881 bombers). German Luftwaffe losses from August 1940 until March 1941 were 2,840 aircraft. Casualties of the German aircrew were 3,363 KIA, 2,117 WIA and 2,641 taken prisoner.

The Lw never really recovered from these losses.

Germany paid the heavier toll as GB was not knocked out of the war. Damage during the BoB and the Blitz was quickly repaired.

[ATAG_Snapper]

What do you mean with "cope with it"?


d

I was getting back on track to the OP. Jim Blonde's reply was very similar to the one I gave the OP at the very beginning of this convoluted thread.

[ATAG_Dutch]

but it wasn't there that the whole war was lost.

By whom? And there we have it. :lol:

Sorry folks, I said I was out. I tried. Honest.

[Sternjaeger II]

If "Germany didn't achieve its goals as expected", then Germany lost and GB won, PERIOD.

that's the tangible evidence I was looking for :rolleyes:


Germany lost 1,922 aircraft (including 879 fighters, 80 Stukas and 881 bombers). German Luftwaffe losses from August 1940 until March 1941 were 2,840 aircraft. Casualties of the German aircrew were 3,363 KIA, 2,117 WIA and 2,641 taken prisoner.

Interesting numbers, but I have different ones

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

GB Strength at the beginning of the conflict:

1,963 serviceable aircraft

Germany strength at the beginning of the conflict:

2,550 serviceable aircraft.

544 aircrew killed 2,698 aircrew killed
422 aircrew wounded
967 captured
638 MIA bodies identified by British Authorities
1,547 aircraft destroyed 1,887 aircraft destroyed


So Germany had more planes and lost slightly more, but in fact it proportionally lost less aircraft. The huge difference in terms of aircrew is because apart for the 109s, all attacking aircraft were multi-crew (the skilled crew members like pilots and navigators lost were in similar numbers of the ones lost by the RAF).

As I mentioned before, it was attrition and it caused similar losses on both ends.

The Lw never really recovered from these losses.


the LW neve recovered from the losses of the Eastern Campaign, not the Battle of Britain. Thanks to replacements they still had pretty much the same number of aircraft when the BoB ended and Barbarossa started.


Germany paid the heavier toll as GB was not knocked out of the war.
Damage during the BoB and the Blitz was quickly repaired.

43000 civilians killed and 46000 wounded is small numbers to you? :shock:

[Sternjaeger II]

By whom? And there we have it. :lol:

Sorry folks, I said I was out. I tried. Honest.

*facepalm* I'm sorry, I can't continue on this with you Dutch..

[ATAG_Dutch]

*facepalm* I'm sorry, I can't continue on this with you Dutch..

Why?

'The war was lost' puts you in the Nazi camp. Or at best the axis powers camp.

'The war concluded with the outcome that it did because.....' shows unbiased opinion.

'The war was lost' demonstrates what I would refer to as bias.

Not in a very clever way, either.

[JimmyBlonde]

I was getting back on track to the OP. Jim Blonde's reply was very similar to the one I gave the OP at the very beginning of this convoluted thread.

Yeah but what do you mean specifically? How did who cope with it? Do you mean the Luftwaffe as a force or the aircrews themselves?

The battle didn't seem to have any real overall influence on the way the Luftwaffe operated as a force. No serious strategic revisions were made and no big restructuring took place. Some people might have liked them to occur but it seems that the Luftwaffe was considered merely a supporting arm of the German war machine rather than a driving force behind it. Time and resources were against Germany also, all but the most delusional must have known it.

As for the crews, maybe biographies, diaries or PoW debriefings can tell. They remained optimistic enough to fight hard for the years after but I'm sure that a few must have seen the writing on the wall. Not many though, most people aren't that imaginative and contemplating defeat is not a good warrior trait.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Let's see if we can not sum up this thread up..

AXIS 0
ALLIEDS 1

Nuff said?

[JimmyBlonde]

the LW neve recovered from the losses of the Eastern Campaign, not the Battle of Britain. Thanks to replacements they still had pretty much the same number of aircraft when the BoB ended and Barbarossa started.



43000 civilians killed and 46000 wounded is small numbers to you? :shock:

The losses in terms or aircraft were trivial to the Luftwaffe and RAF alike, both sides had the capacity to produce more aircraft than they had pilots to fly them. The kill figures just make a good score-card for the drones who provide the labour.

The losses in experienced crews were the deciding factor.

Basically the core of Luftwaffe veterans was depleted to a point which subsequent attrition never allowed full recovery from whereas, on the RAF side, they didn't have that many combat veterans to lose. Mainly the RAF lost inexperienced replacements with whom the British bought themselves time where they could probably withdrawn to the north and saved themselves the trouble since the Germans could not make a strategic impact on Britain by air power anyway, nor is it entirely convincing that they could have invaded in light of their entirely inferior naval strength and the logistical demands of such an undertaking.

Also, 43,000 fatalities looks like a big number, well, it is a big number. However, in terms of bombing casualties during WW2, is isn't really that big. Civilian losses during many late war allied raids reached totals like that in less than a week, sometimes even in a single raid. Take Dresden for example, current estimates put the toll from that one night at 25,000 killed. Hamburg, 50,000, Pforzheim, 18,000. In Tokyo the largest casualty figure from a single conventional raid is estimated to have been 88,000 killed in one night during February 1945. (Figures all from Wiki for what it's worth)

Destruction of civilian and industrial property is widely acknowledged as only having a marginal effect on the war effort by both sides, this is a well documented and incontrovertible fact. People can relocate, industry can go underground.

Just look at German aircraft production figures in 1944. The combined weight of the sustained RAF and USAAF bombing campaigns made absolutely no dent in German industrial capacity at all in regards to aircraft production. Figures show that production actually steadily increased during the entire campaign as demand increased. Basically the allied plan to disrupt aircraft production in the Reich by bombing factories was a total failure in terms of their specified objective and it wasn't until ground forces secured those centers that production halted.

The true success of their efforts came from the attrition of resistance and the depletion of strategic resources.

[NedLynch]

Are you guys still at it?

War's over, has been for a long time, remember the dead on all sides and the lives they never had.

Don't try to rewrite history by arguing about what cannot be argued about.


And how did the luftwaffe pilots cope with their defeat? Everyone differently in his own way.

[Wutz]

Let's see if we can not sum up this thread up..

AXIS 0
ALLIEDS 1

Nuff said?

On that bases you can say
Britons 0
Romans 1

Or
Normal people 0
Hooligans and looters 1

any more wacky comparisons?

[bongodriver]

On that bases you can say
Britons 0
Romans 1

Or
Normal people 0
Hooligans and looters 1

any more wacky comparisons?

Whacky?.......OMG you really are in complete denial.

how can a country that ended up split in two and occupied by 4 different nations for decades not consider itself defeated?

[DrDom]

I'm all outta popcorn :(

[winny]

Surley success can only be measured against objective?

The German objective was air supremacy over southern England, the British objective was to stop that. So that's a victory for that particular phase.

Problem with the Battle of Britain is that at the time nobody really knew it had finished, it just sort of changed into the Blitz period.

Back to the OT, I think a lot of the LW people were disillusioned with German High Command ofter the BoB. In the same way that the RAF became disillusioned with the fighter sweeps and bomber escorts of the later years.

As for the score... Wasn't it 2-0? (tounge is firmly in cheek!)

[Sternjaeger II]

Problem with the Battle of Britain is that at the time nobody really knew it had finished, it just sort of changed into the Blitz period.

Bingo.

It was Winston Churchill that spoke first on the radio about "the Battle of Britain", and it became the propaganda name for it, but de facto the air operations of Germany against Great Britain were just a part of the invasion plan, and the bombing of England continued up to 1945 with V1s and V2s.

The glory of the Battle of Britain is a modern phenomenon (you probably know better than me that up until the movie Battle of Britain the public opinion knew or cared little about it. So the idea was to pick up on a moment of national pride and dust it off, but it has been misinterpreted. Surely the brave RAF pilots and everyone involved deserve all the praise in the world for the fantastic effort made to stop the Germans, but the effort to repel the air offensive of 1940 doesn't mean there was a straight victory.

The propaganda was in need of a positive message, so they started claiming the victory of a battle that was perceived as such only from one side.

I dunno if I made myself clear, I reckon I should gather my thoughts and expose them in a more organic form. I am still afraid that national bias is getting in the way here. Nobody is depriving you of your pride or anything like that, it's just a case of a fair assessment of a specific part of the war.

[blackmme]

Bingo.

It was Winston Churchill that spoke first on the radio about "the Battle of Britain", and it became the propaganda name for it, but de facto the air operations of Germany against Great Britain were just a part of the invasion plan, and the bombing of England continued up to 1945 with V1s and V2s.

The glory of the Battle of Britain is a modern phenomenon (you probably know better than me that up until the movie Battle of Britain the public opinion knew or cared little about it. So the idea was to pick up on a moment of national pride and dust it off, but it has been misinterpreted. Surely the brave RAF pilots and everyone involved deserve all the praise in the world for the fantastic effort made to stop the Germans, but the effort to repel the air offensive of 1940 doesn't mean there was a straight victory.

The propaganda was in need of a positive message, so they started claiming the victory of a battle that was perceived as such only from one side.

I dunno if I made myself clear, I reckon I should gather my thoughts and expose them in a more organic form. I am still afraid that national bias is getting in the way here. Nobody is depriving you of your pride or anything like that, it's just a case of a fair assessment of a specific part of the war.

Stern you have made some really interesting points throughout this discussion. But your comment about the glory of the Battle of Britain being a modern phenonomenon kick started by the 1969 movie is absolutely and totally wrong, laughable actually. The Battle and the 'Few' was part of the british consciousness from 1940 onward and revered.

I'll add an edit, I think you must have been trolling with that remark. Quite frankly its the same as saying to any American on the forum that everyone had forgotten about Pearl Harbor until Michael Bay made a (very, very, very bad) movie about it!

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Mike, I know what you mean, I found it silly myself, but it was was I was told by many people who were here in the 60s. There wasn't a lot of celebration for WW2 veterans 20 years after the end of the war.

[JG5_emil]

I can't believe I am reading some of this stuff. The RAF victory in the Battle of Britain is because had the Luftwaffe succeeded the next phase was to be an invasion!

The RAF also caused massive damage to the LW but the main result was that by the end of the air battle the UK and it's Empire was still very much in the fight and the RAF was stronger than before.

At that point in time the UK and it's Empire was the only opposing force to German and it's allies. Had we lost and been invaded the USA would never have joined the war and Russia could very well have been defeated!

[blackmme]

Mike, I know what you mean, I found it silly myself, but it was was I was told by many people who were here in the 60s. There wasn't a lot of celebration for WW2 veterans 20 years after the end of the war.

Stern don't confuse the overall WW2 remembrance with the Battle of Britain. It was and is an absolute part of the national consciousness and culture. I'm sure as the Few and my parents generation pass away it will of course dim but then it will take on a different form and take it's place alongside Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo. (all draws? ;))

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Stern don't confuse the overall WW2 remembrance with the Battle of Britain. It was and is an absolute part of the national consciousness and culture. I'm sure as the Few and my parents generation pass away it will of course dim but then it will take on a different form and take it's place alongside Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo. (all draws? ;))

Regards Mike

Mike, I remember buying the DVD of the restored edition of Battle of Britain, inside there was a short documentary with interview to the average people on the street, and very few could give a precise definition of the Battle of Britain: many had no idea, some believed that it was how Great Britain won WW2..

I think the examples that you mentioned are bang on: Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo were the battles that determined a final victory of one of the sides, comparing them to the aerial battle of 1940 over the channel is a mistake, since they weren't sub-conflicts of a much wider war.

After Great Britain declared war to Germany, V-E day was celebrated in 1945, not in 1940. In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.


Let's think of an example which might not be as emotionally linked as the BoB, think of the Battle of Kursk:

Russia lost 3 times the number of men, vehicles and aircraft that they displaced, but they pushed back the Germans and gained territory. It's an awkward situation, cos it cost them a lot more in terms of men and resources, but they managed to push back the enemy and gain territory.

With the Battle of Britain nothing changed.

[blackmme]

Mike, I remember buying the DVD of the restored edition of Battle of Britain, inside there was a short documentary with interview to the average people on the street, and very few could give a precise definition of the Battle of Britain: many had no idea, some believed that it was how Great Britain won WW2..

I think the examples that you mentioned are bang on: Hastings, Trafalgar and Waterloo were the battles that determined a final victory of one of the sides, comparing them to the aerial battle of 1940 over the channel is a mistake, since they weren't sub-conflicts of a much wider war.

After Great Britain declared war to Germany, V-E day was celebrated in 1945, not in 1940. In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.

I won't comment on historical analysis via DVD extra's.

It most certainly was a victory and a very, very important one.

No Trafalgar wasn't a final battle if was very much a 'sub conflict' (to use your term), it was a battle where both (three sides really) sides took heavy losses (both during and after the battle) and one that safeguarded the UK from invasion. I think the comparison is very apt even down to the fact that Trafalgar is IMHO has greater 'cultural' recognition than Waterloo and Hastings.

Regards Mike

[winny]

In the grand scheme of things the aerial Battle of Britain was an early large scale attrition war, which ended up with similar results (apart for the thousands of civilian casualties on the British side) for both sides. No matter how hard you try to think of it, you can't really think of it as a victory.

It is a victory, it's not as obvious because there was no mass surrender, or no symbolic flag raising, or no territory gained. However it was a victory. If one side achieves thier goal and the other dosn't, it's not a draw. It was a battle for air supremacy ,'to destroy Fighter Command, in the air and on the ground', not part of the invasion, the invasion was dependant on the outcome of the air battle.

It was also a big confidence boost, Britain had 'stood firm', the first country in Europe to do so. I can, and do, think of it as a victory, quite small in the scheme of things, numbers wise, but vital. It was also a battle that favoured the defenders, for all sorts of reasons, not least The Channel, but we've had that for centuries, the Island Mentality.



In hindsight, considering what happened afterwards and how the war ended, you can say that it was a contributing factor to the ultimate victory, but nothing suggests that, had Hitler decided so, the Luftwaffe couldn't have carried on operations against Great Britain for longer.

You cannot ignore the complete failure of German high command, they are after all part of the battle. The ifs and maybes can never be known. All we do know is that Hitler and his generals never returned to try and finish off Fighter Command.

I know we've got previous and I'd like to keep this civil, if it wasn't a draw, and the LW didn't achive their objective how can you say that it was'nt a victory, if not for Britain, then at the very least for Fighter Command. They did their job. The LW couldn't.

[bongodriver]

Exactly, the Nazi's blitzed across europe as if nothing stood in their way, but got their first taste of resistance from us on our doorstep......but I think the penny has dropped....it wasn't a victory because of our efforts.....it was the tea, nothing seems to be more repugnant to a German than our love of tea, see how many times in this forum a German has tried to insult a brit over our tea drinking.....I guess it's like garlic for vampires.

[Sternjaeger II]

It is a victory, it's not as obvious because there was no mass surrender, or no symbolic flag raising, or no territory gained. However it was a victory. If one side achieves thier goal and the other dosn't, it's not a draw. It was a battle for air supremacy ,'to destroy Fighter Command, in the air and on the ground', not part of the invasion, the invasion was dependant on the outcome of the air battle.

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered.

Guys, how can you possibly not see that after fighting for months over the Channel, the RAF paid a HUGE price in terms of aeroplanes and above all pilots, and so did Germany, but the Luftwaffe had its forces in Africa, Greece, Russia, Norway and mainland Europe? How can that be a defeat? It was a large scale skirmish, which produced almost equal losses and became relevant only when the USA joined and used England as a massive aircraft and troop carrier.


It was also a big confidence boost, Britain had 'stood firm', the first country in Europe to do so. I can, and do, think of it as a victory, quite small in the scheme of things, numbers wise, but vital. It was also a battle that favoured the defenders, for all sorts of reasons, not least The Channel, but we've had that for centuries, the Island Mentality.

That I completely agree with. And I'm afraid that this "island mentality" is confusing the judgement of you guys, again I'm not expecting this thing to be understood by the common people, but people like you, who have an interest in aviation and history can't talk about this in terms of victory and defeat.

So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.


You cannot ignore the complete failure of German high command, they are after all part of the battle. The ifs and maybes can never be known. All we do know is that Hitler and his generals never returned to try and finish off Fighter Command.

I'm not ignoring that, the German high command took wrong decisions constantly after Dunkirk, but this doesn't mean that they thought they were doing the right thing.

I know we've got previous and I'd like to keep this civil, if it wasn't a draw, and the LW didn't achive their objective how can you say that it was'nt a victory, if not for Britain, then at the very least for Fighter Command. They did their job. The LW couldn't.

I appreciate the fact you want to keep it civil, and I hope you see I have the same intentions.

The RAF Fighter Command was put in front of an extremely steep learning curve, truth is that the RAF flew and fought with territorial advantage and had to employ only figthers, not bombers or other complex aircraft.

The opposition they put up against the Germans was exemplar, but in some phases desperate. Still their determination together with the ineptitude of the German command meant that they could put up a fight with inferior machines and still be able to limit damage.

In some way they were given a task somehow simpler than the German one: they knew what what they were defending, the Germans didn't really know what they were attacking.

[Sternjaeger II]

I won't comment on historical analysis via DVD extra's.
why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.


It most certainly was a victory and a very, very important one.

The outcome of the Battle of Britain was very very important indeed, but it wasn't a victory..

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.


No Trafalgar wasn't a final battle if was very much a 'sub conflict' (to use your term), it was a battle where both (three sides really) sides took heavy losses (both during and after the battle) and one that safeguarded the UK from invasion. I think the comparison is very apt even down to the fact that Trafalgar is IMHO has greater 'cultural' recognition than Waterloo and Hastings.

Regards Mike

the cultural recognition is debatable me thinks. What do you base it on, the fact that you have a celebrative square in London?

[bongodriver]

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.

p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.

[bongodriver]

why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.

testimony of a very few people, and it may have even been edited deliberately to give the impression, who can say they didn't interview as many if not more people who knew all about it? they just never got put into the final cut.

Go out on the steets of America and ask where France is (theres even a funny video about it)....it doesn't mean the US as a whole is ignorant of geography.

[bongodriver]

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.


By the rules of the competition at the time....yes we did.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the agenda here with trying to discredit every achievent Britain ever made?

[blackmme]

why, because it's in a movie DVD? It's witting testimony, direct accounts from the 60s there for you, not a book written by someone, but audio/video reference.


The outcome of the Battle of Britain was very very important indeed, but it wasn't a victory..

I always get the impression that there's a weird conception of Victory here: take the Schneider Cup, did you win that one too? I'd be embarrassed to say yes to that.



the cultural recognition is debatable me thinks. What do you base it on, the fact that you have a celebrative square in London?

To address your points

1.
I'm seriously going to leave the DVD, I think ignoring a vast amount of information and deciding that a DVD extra is the best source is just daft.

2.
What has the Schneider trophy got to do with this?

3.
Well the square, the preserved HMS Victory, the currency (up to quite recently), the Trafalgar day celebrations (widely celebrated on the 200th anniversary) , the beer... hmmmmmm beer etc, etc.

Regards Mike

[blackmme]

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered.

So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.



Yes Pearl Harbor was a big tactical Japanese Victory.

Could you do me a favour and run the Battle of Midway through your personal 'What constitutes a victory' filter and let me know the results?

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

With all this talk of British inferior machines but territorial advantage and German leadership ineptitude blah.....we really just need to weigh up each sides wakness and strenght and it will pretty much equate to an even match....which the Germans came off worst from.
p.s. just to add I'm talking in that particular battle with the immediate forces involved and not the German military as a whole or their other conflicts at the time.
NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

[Sternjaeger II]

By the rules of the competition at the time....yes we did.

Just out of interest, what exactly is the agenda here with trying to discredit every achievent Britain ever made?


Yeah, racing alone while others deliberately didn't sounds like a great challenge uh? :rolleyes:

No, I've listed before the successes and achievements of Britain.

[ATAG_Dutch]

The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.



'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10551907&screenwidth=1903

[Sternjaeger II]

To address your points

1.
I'm seriously going to leave the DVD, I think ignoring a vast amount of information and deciding that a DVD extra is the best source is just daft.

It's your opinion, mine was an example.


2.
What has the Schneider trophy got to do with this?

It was meant as a provocation in regards to the definition of "victory". But then again I suppose you think it was a honourable victory..

3.
Well the square, the preserved HMS Victory, the currency (up to quite recently), the Trafalgar day celebrations (widely celebrated on the 200th anniversary) , the beer... hmmmmmm beer etc, etc.

Regards Mike

I agree about the beer... hmmmmmmmm beer ;)

Yes Pearl Harbor was a big tactical Japanese Victory.

Could you do me a favour and run the Battle of Midway through your personal 'What constitutes a victory' filter and let me know the results?

Regards Mike

Really? Why there needs always to be this "winning and losing" scenario? Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, it was a success, but not a victory.

I gave you the example of the battle of Kursk.

[Sternjaeger II]

'The official Government publication called The Battle of Britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the R.A.F. hurled back the overwhelming might of the Luftwaffe between August and October last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at His Majesty's Stationery Office, Kingsway, London.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10551907&screenwidth=1903

Which year is this?

[blackmme]

NO, they didn't. GB came off worst because of the bombing damage and casualties, the air forces suffered similar losses.
Imaging walking around Coventry or London in 1940 and say "hey! We won the battle!", how awkward and out of place you reckon it would have been?
The whole postwar celebration of the Battle of Britain on the British side is because there actually wasn't one back then, cos war carried on, and so did the Blitz.

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

[blackmme]

It's your opinion, mine was an example.

I gave you the example of the battle of Kursk.

Not me about Kursk. I'm interested in your view on Midway.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Now why do you think the two things in the eye's of the British people were two seperate things each with their own name?

It's because the Battle of Britain was understood to be about preventing invasion and the Blitz was about bombing the civilians with the aim of breaking the countries will to carry on fighting.

The british public well knew that they had 'survived' that the invasion hadn't happened (how ever likely it was) and they knew that the RAF was responsible.

If you had said to someone in London or Coventry (or many other cities) hey we won the Battle of Britain I fully would have expected them to reply 'But were bleedin well losing the Blitz!'

Regards Mike

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

[blackmme]

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

[ATAG_Dutch]

which year is this?

'the official government publication called the battle of britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the r.a.f. Hurled back the overwhelming might of the luftwaffe between august and october last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at his majesty's stationery office, kingsway, london.

1941

[Sternjaeger II]

1941

I'm confused, so what's this to prove?

[DD_crash]

Stern, you asked what year the book was published ;) by the way the clue was "October LAST year" This thread reminds me of the Odin thread on the zoo. He thought that the Brits should have lost because they deserved to. He got very upset and ended up banned by BG.

[lane]

I'm confused...

Indeed!

[Sternjaeger II]

Stern, you asked what year the book was published ;) by the way the clue was "October LAST year" This thread reminds me of the Odin thread on the zoo. He thought that the Brits should have lost because they deserved to. He got very upset and ended up banned by BG.

Thanks for the hint, didn't realise it.

I don't think Britain should have lost, I'm very very happy things went as they did, I just hate it when propaganda gets in the way of history, that's all.

[Sternjaeger II]

Indeed!

A message to you to all the forum members merging in this thread: if you expose an intelligent exchange of ideas and conclusion I am up for it, but I will feel free to ignore every provocative or out of context message, just don't have time to play with all of you ;)

[DD_crash]

Thanks for the hint, didn't realise it.

No problem. I find this stuff interesting. I dont think that anyone on the German side realized the consequences of the British still fighting on. In other words no need for the Afrika Korps to exist, no need to build as many U boats, no need to use the paratroops in Crete, no need to keep the Luftwaffe in France Holland and Norway, no problem getting oil from Libya no need to produce as much A/A hardware etc this would make operations in the Soviet Union much easier.

[Sammi79]

The Battle of Britain was a defensive victory, Britain was attacked - and Britain defended herself - successfully. I call that victory. The Luftwaffe could not continue with the attack on Britain effectively after that point, for many reasons, particularly with the British technological advances in radar and communications, the poor decisions of the Nazi leadership up until then and after, the heavy losses of experienced German aircrews, the failure of the Nazi war machine to produce an effective heavy bomber etc... Most importantly psychologically the RAF now had the edge - after winning the Battle of Britain.

It has been mentioned here that Churchill did not perceive this as a victory which is wrong, - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' - was specifically describing the victory. Yes he later made a statement to remind people that this had been a battle, and although it had been won the war would continue.

Ok so losses of men and machines on both sides were comparable,(although with inferior machines and fewer numbers the RAF still managed to attrit the Luftwaffe to the point of defeat - not destruction but defeat) this does not negate the fact that, the attack was fought off, so therefore it was victory for the defenders. Tactical, maybe. Insignificant to anyone else other than the British, maybe, but a victory none the less. Many historians and academics regard it as a pivotal victory, pertaining significance to the eventual outcome of the war, I don't like to speculate. But in terms of the battle itself, it was won by the RAF and lost by the Luftwaffe.

[blackmme]

No problem. I find this stuff interesting. I dont think that anyone on the German side realized the consequences of the British still fighting on. In other words no need for the Afrika Korps to exist, no need to build as many U boats, no need to use the paratroops in Crete, no need to keep the Luftwaffe in France Holland and Norway, no problem getting oil from Libya no need to produce as much A/A hardware etc this would make operations in the Soviet Union much easier.

I think you are absolutely correct, they assumed that after they had finished the Soviet Union off in a few weeks they could come back and deal with Britain. Clearly they never considered that the UK could form the springboard for America to bring her energy, effort and resources to bare. Then again they obviously never even considered that when they declared war on the US! Is that declaration of war the single biggest strategic mistake in military history?

Regards Mike

[Al Schlageter]

Why am I reminded of a football game with a score of 1:0? The loosing team claims the game was a tie because the goal scored on them was an 'own goal'.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

[blackmme]

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

[FFCW_Urizen]

ok, let´s not use the terms victory or defeat or draw. germanys goal was to force gb to the negotiation table or destroy gb air force to the point, that an invasion can be considered. since neither of those two goals were achieved, i call that a big failure at least. whereas england reached their goal, preventing air superiorty of lw, which i´d call a success.

though i can understand, why u say it´s a draw stern, with the reasons you have given, i on the other hand think it is still a defeat. yes they delayed their plans and moved onto another frontline, but on the other hand, would they have done the same, if "Operation Seelöwe" were successful? what if hitler used this failure as an excuse, not to lose his face? yes, it is highly speculative, but we didn´t live at that time, we only know, what historians found. but even a historian doesn´t know, what went on in the individuals head. we are talking about the us, germany, france and so forth, but we are not taking into consideration the personality of their leaders.

so long uri

PS: sorry, but since english is not my native tongue, my ideas and opinions are not as eloquently put as they should have been.

[Sternjaeger II]

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

Mike, it's not the first time I say this (funnily enough it's always with Britons): I'm afraid we will have to agree on disagreeing over this matter.

Uh, since we're on it and since I provided some examples of what I reckon successful achievements of the UK, if anything to show I'm not following some personal crazy agenda of a discrediting campaign against GB, can you please give me some examples of historical, social etc.. events that you reckon Great Britain is guilty or should be ashamed/sorry for?

[blackmme]

Mike, it's not the first time I say this (funnily enough it's always with Britons): I'm afraid we will have to agree on disagreeing over this matter.

Uh, since we're on it and since I provided some examples that show me how unbiased I am in the judgement of Great Britain, can you please give me some examples of historical, social etc.. events that you reckon Great Britain is guilty or should be ashamed of?

A.

On your first point, I have (had) three German grandparents and one British. I don't consider myself a) your typical brit b) prejudiced.

As to your second point what on earth does that have to do with anything?! Why are we now 'judging' Great Britain?
To be honest Stern you are coming over as having an 'issue' (unspecified) with the British.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

On your first point, I have (had) three German grandparents and one British. I don't consider myself a) your typical brit b) prejudiced.

As to your second point what on earth does that have to do with anything?! Why are we now 'judging' Great Britain?
To be honest Stern you are coming over as having an 'issue' (unspecified) with the British.

Regards Mike

well, I've been questioned in this thread for being biased and anti-British just cos I'm saying that the common perception of the Battle of Britain as a victory for Britain is conceptually wrong.

So as much as I had to show my unbiased attitude, I'm expecting others to do the same. The fact that you have 3 German grandparents doesn't add much to the equation.

[Talisman]

I find it interesting that this was mostly an air battle, rather than the usual sea, land or combination of all 3. I am not sure how often that has happened before or since, or whether the Battle of Britain was the longest lasting battle in the air that there has been. Lots of other battles have involved air power in association with sea and land forces, but this battle seems to have been more about one air power vs another air power in a trial of strength and will.

Happy landings,

[winny]

Great Britain achieved its goal when Germany surrendered. So by your reckoning Stalingrad wasn't a defeat for the German Army? Mereley a setback? Battles are fought over objectives. Surley? There is a difference between a Battle and a War. Winning this particular battle enabled the UK to stay in the war, Hitler wanted the UK out of the war. How's that not a victory?


Guys, how can you possibly not see that after fighting for months over the Channel, the RAF paid a HUGE price in terms of aeroplanes and above all pilots, and so did Germany, but the Luftwaffe had its forces in Africa, Greece, Russia, Norway and mainland Europe? How can that be a defeat? It was a large scale skirmish, which produced almost equal losses and became relevant only when the USA joined and used England as a massive aircraft and troop carrier.

It was a defeat in the BoB. You don't measure numbers, you measure objectives. The LW's objective was clear, destroy Fighter Command. They couldn't. Using the 'nobody won because there were other forces in other parts of the world' is irrelevant. Whatever the encounter was, it was won by the RAF.


That I completely agree with. And I'm afraid that this "island mentality" is confusing the judgement of you guys, again I'm not expecting this thing to be understood by the common people, but people like you, who have an interest in aviation and history can't talk about this in terms of victory and defeat.

It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..


Was it a Battle, a campaign, a skirmish? That's arguing over nomanclature.
Nothing to do with the result.


So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict.

Look, if you can't tell the difference between an attack (over 1 day) and a Battle then there's no point arguning this. Pearl harbour was attacked. It triggered the war in the Pacific, in which there were many battles. As far as the attack went it was mainly unsuccessful. Going by objective.




I'm not ignoring that, the German high command took wrong decisions constantly after Dunkirk, but this doesn't mean that they thought they were doing the right thing.

I appreciate the fact you want to keep it civil, and I hope you see I have the same intentions.

The RAF Fighter Command was put in front of an extremely steep learning curve, truth is that the RAF flew and fought with territorial advantage and had to employ only figthers, not bombers or other complex aircraft.

The opposition they put up against the Germans was exemplar, but in some phases desperate. Still their determination together with the ineptitude of the German command meant that they could put up a fight with inferior machines and still be able to limit damage.

In some way they were given a task somehow simpler than the German one: they knew what what they were defending, the Germans didn't really know what they were attacking.

I agree with all of that.

[blackmme]

well, I've been questioned in this thread for being biased and anti-British just cos I'm saying that the common perception of the Battle of Britain as a victory for Britain is conceptually wrong.

So as much as I had to show my unbiased attitude, I'm expecting others to do the same. The fact that you have 3 German grandparents doesn't add much to the equation.

No Stern to be honest I think you are questioned about being 'anti british' because you come over as being a bit 'anti british' not because of your views on the Battle of Britain (but thats just my opinion and doesn't mean you are or indeed of course that your views are wrong).

One example is being asked to come up with a list of times Britain has been in the wrong through history. Its not relevent to either my contribution to this discussion or the subject at hand.

As far as I am concerned prior to your previous I have thoroughly enjoyed our very civil discussion. As we both clearly have an interest in Flight Sim's and History I think there is much more that unites than divides us and thats good enough for me.

(edited to add 'a bit' the original was far too harsh and rude!)

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

No Stern to be honest I think you are questioned about being 'anti british' because you come over as being a bit 'anti british' not because of your views on the Battle of Britain (but thats just my opinion and doesn't mean you are or indeed of course that your views are wrong).

I have no interest in being anti-British, I wouldn't live here if I was.
On the other hand I am a HUGE fan of fairness, and never liked when governments use propaganda to alter the perception of reality.

One example is being asked to come up with a list of times Britain has been in the wrong through history. Its not relevent to either my contribution to this discussion or the subject at hand.

I had no problem in doing it, I don't see why you have problems with it, please indulge me..

As far as I am concerned prior to your previous I have thoroughly enjoyed our very civil discussion. As we both clearly have an interest in Flight Sim's and History I think there is much more that unites than divides us and thats good enough for me.

(edited to add 'a bit' the original was far too harsh and rude!)

Regards Mike

Fair enough, and you have all my respect for this.

[Sternjaeger II]

So by your reckoning Stalingrad wasn't a defeat for the German Army? Mereley a setback? Battles are fought over objectives. Surley? There is a difference between a Battle and a War. Winning this particular battle enabled the UK to stay in the war, Hitler wanted the UK out of the war. How's that not a victory?

No, Stalingrad was a decisive battle because it altered the frontline and was the beginning of the end in the Russian campaign for Germany.

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.


It was a defeat in the BoB. You don't measure numbers, you measure objectives. The LW's objective was clear, destroy Fighter Command. They couldn't. Using the 'nobody won because there were other forces in other parts of the world' is irrelevant. Whatever the encounter was, it was won by the RAF.

Oh no, you need to measure both, you can't just look at the facts that draw in your favour, otherwise we're talking of the aforementioned Pyrrhic victory..


It's Ironic that the Island Mentality is used against us, we're an island and it was that mentality which meant that instead of just rolling over, as many other countries did, we stood our ground. I'm wary of using the 'we' because I know that it wasn't me, it was my Grandparents, however by us having and using that mentality, you have the freedom to criticise it.. Such is life..
[quote]
Man, let's not play the Island banjo for too long, the truth is that your real strength was in the fact that you're an island, and as such you would have needed to be invaded by an adequate force. They knew this and they failed in their objective on the long run, but not because you overcame them, it was their lack of perseverance.
[quote]
Was it a Battle, a campaign, a skirmish? That's arguing over nomanclature.
Nothing to do with the result.

you'd be surprised on how a single word can make the whole difference. Look what's happening with Victory vs Draw here.


Look, if you can't tell the difference between an attack (over 1 day) and a Battle then there's no point arguning this. Pearl harbour was attacked. It triggered the war in the Pacific, in which there were many battles. As far as the attack went it was mainly unsuccessful. Going by objective.

it wasn't me who mentioned Pearl Harbour, still there's people here who think it was a Japanese victory.. what did they exactly win?


I agree with all of that.

..and we still manage to agree, fantastic! :mrgreen:

[DD_crash]

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.


I`ll bite :-P
Short term : Seelowe postponed (indefinitely )
Long term : diverting resource from the whole point of the war and allowing the Allies to re-take France and then invade Germany.
Apart from that I agree no effect at all :grin:

[Sternjaeger II]

I`ll bite :-P
Short term : Seelowe postponed (indefinitely )
Long term : diverting resource from the whole point of the war and allowing the Allies to re-take France and then invade Germany.
Apart from that I agree no effect at all :grin:

yes, I mean IF no Battle of Britain was ever fought, how would it have affected the rest of the war?

The numerical odds of the Luftwaffe against the Allies in the ETO would have been no match anyway.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.

Don't have a heart attack Stern, but I kind of agree with you here, with one reservation.

Germany's attacks and threat of invasion didn't alter anything as regards the British resolve to defeat Germany in the longer term.

The resolve to defeat Germany was there before the Battle and was unchanged subsequent to it.

It did mean though, and here's the reservation, that even after 9 months preparation, the Luftwaffe which attacked Russia the following June was not as numerically strong or experienced as that which attacked the UK. Had the full force of the German land and airforces attacked Russia.... well the rest is conjecture.

Britain maintaining its belligerence meant that German forces and materiel were occupied elsewhere as has been mentioned.

The attrition suffered as a result of the Battle of Britain added to this did make a difference.

In my opinion, of course.

[blackmme]

No, Stalingrad was a decisive battle because it altered the frontline and was the beginning of the end in the Russian campaign for Germany.


Decisive battle or Soviet victory Stern?

I would say the front line moving isn't that important (does it have to move a centimetre, a metre or a hundred kilometres to count?). It's a victory because the Soviets achieved their objectives and the Germans failed to achieve theirs. Same as the Battle of Britain we can discuss which was more important but at the end of the day that is subjective, the truth is they were all important victories in the final outcome. That they were both victories is beyond doubt.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Decisive battle or Soviet victory Stern?

I would say the front line moving isn't that important (does it have to move an centimetre, a metre or a hundred kilometres to count?). It's a victory because the Soviets achieved their objectives and the Germans failed to achieve theirs. Same as the Battle of Britain we can discuss which was more important but at the end of the day that is subjective, the truth is they were all important victories in the final outcome. That they were both victories is beyond doubt.

Regards Mike

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

[Sternjaeger II]

Don't have a heart attack Stern, but I kind of agree with you here, with one reservation.

..izzat a joke? ;-)

Germany's attacks and threat of invasion didn't alter anything as regards the British resolve to defeat Germany in the longer term.

The resolve to defeat Germany was there before the Battle and was unchanged subsequent to it.

It did mean though, and here's the reservation, that even after 9 months preparation, the Luftwaffe which attacked Russia the following June was not as numerically strong or experienced as that which attacked the UK. Had the full force of the German land and airforces attacked Russia.... well the rest is conjecture.

well, for a crippled air force, as some are some are lead to believe, they did damn well, establishing air superiority over such a vast area in such a short time. Again, I don't think the numbers were affected that much, besides the precious experience gained by pilots during the Battle of Britain was of serious use in the eastern campaign.

Britain maintaining its belligerence meant that German forces and materiel were occupied elsewhere as has been mentioned.

The attrition suffered as a result of the Battle of Britain added to this did make a difference.

In my opinion, of course.

They wasted a lot of ammo, aircraft, fuel and lives, but not as much to cripple them forever. The sustained strain of enlarged fronts with the Russian campaign, together with the aerial defence of mainland Europe and the Mediterranean were probably the true blow for the Luftwaffe. By 1943 the German pilots based in Sicily already had a sense of defeat and knew that the only sensible solution was to fall back into the mainland.

[blackmme]

yes, I mean IF no Battle of Britain was ever fought, how would it have affected the rest of the war?


So we now have to prove a negative!
It should be easier to summise what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had succeeded in achieving it's objectives and the RAF had failed to achieve its.

The Germans would have won.

The British government would have fallen. Churchill would have taken the rap. Halifax would have become PM and a peace settlement would have been agreed (at very unfavourable terms to the British).

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

So we now have to prove a negative!
It should be easier to summise what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had succeeded in achieving it's objectives and the RAF had failed to achieve its.

The Germans would have won.

The British government would have fallen. Churchill would have taken the rap. Halifax would have become PM and a peace settlement would have been agreed (at very unfavourable terms to the British).

Regards Mike

no no, I said if there was no battle of britain at all and things remained as they were.. would it have made any difference?

And yes, things might have gone monumentally wrong if Germany won against Great Britain, thank god it never happened!

[blackmme]

The Russians won the war when they were waving their flag over the Reichstag, you can talk about winning or losing at the end of a conflict, you can also talk about battles that influenced the end of the war (i.e. Stalingrad), but they can't all be win or lose, otherwise it'd be more a case of
the Germans advancing like this:

1941: win win win win! win win win! win win und mehr win!
1942: ach, was ist passiert? Nicht mehr win?
1942/1945: ach! lose! lose lose lose! Mehr lose?! Nein nein nein!!! Himmel! lose lose ....

etc..

ww2 wasn't a football championship with scoreboards, it wasn't even the old fashioned way of fighting, with a frontline and one (or more) direct battle in one battlefield. Because of its different entity and development we can't attribute win or loss until the end of the conflict.

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

So there are no individual victories only final victory?

I guess we can now conclude our discussion (and look forward to the next one). I believe you to be utterly and completely wrong.

Regards Mike

Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

[blackmme]

Under an academic, historical point of view, yes.

it's all down to how you scale your point of view on history. When looking at a conflict in its entire size, you can't take into account every single minor battle that happened, but only the effects it had, regardless of who felt like he won that day.

The Battle of Britain was not a minor battle and the effect of the Luftwaffe not achieving it's aim and the RAF achieving it's aim (there are words for these conditions) are simple to understand, look at the geopolical world around you to see them.

Regards Mike

[winny]

No, Stalingrad was a decisive battle because it altered the frontline and was the beginning of the end in the Russian campaign for Germany.

Considering its short term and long term effects, the Battle of Britain might as well never have happened.


So by that you're saying that if the LW achieved it's goals there wouldn't have been an invasion?
Long term effects of the Battle were that German High Command had to procede with the Russian Offensive before the UK was out of the war, the 2 fronted war was born. This pressured them into launching an attack 2 years (by Hilter's own reckoning) too early, which in turn led to the defeat in the East, surley even you can admit to that. Playing down the significance of the defence of Britian to make it fit your argument is silly.


Oh no, you need to measure both, you can't just look at the facts that draw in your favour, otherwise we're talking of the aforementioned Pyrrhic victory..

I disagree, it's all about objective. Not cost. First world war bears this out, time and time again. Was Stalingrad a defeat for the Russians because they lost so many men, and Stalingrad was virtually destroyed? The Germans wanted Stalingrad, the Russians stopped them. A win for the Russians.


Man, let's not play the Island banjo for too long, the truth is that your real strength was in the fact that you're an island, and as such you would have needed to be invaded by an adequate force. They knew this and they failed in their objective on the long run, but not because you overcame them, it was their lack of perseverance.

The island banjo? it's ingrained into the phyce of the UK, again you try to lessen the importance of the actions of the UK in the first 2 years of WW2

OK, I'm quite happy to say the LW 'gave up 'through lack of perseverance, however giving up in any other battle would be, and is, considered a loss.
Find me one example where an Army gave up fighting and it was considered a win?


you'd be surprised on how a single word can make the whole difference. Look what's happening with Victory vs Draw here.

A draw would be neither side achieving it's goal. A win is one side achieving their goal. A defeat is not achieving your goal.



it wasn't me who mentioned Pearl Harbour, still there's people here who think it was a Japanese victory.. what did they exactly win?

I'm sorry but you asked me plainly "So what do you make of Pearl Harbour? Was that a Japanese victory? It was a part of a larger conflict."

I said that objectivley, it wasn't a Japanese victory. They wanted to destroy the US Fleet whilst it was docked, they didn't. That was not my point, my point was that Pearl Harbour was not, and should never be considered a battle. It was a surprise attack. In the space of a few hours.

So, my main point is that unless you achieve your goal whilst not letting your enemy achieve theirs, you're a loser.

What you're using as an example of a draw would be seen as a defeat in any other circumstances, it's the equivilent of a boxer not coming out of his corner, that's not a draw.

[Momod]

Somewhere in a parallel universe the Germans did win the battle of britain but there was no healthy debate over that episode because free speech, democracy and all the freedoms we know today would have disappeared 71 years ago, "Never in the field of human conflict......"

[flyingblind]

After Dunkirk, Hitler really would have liked Britain to roll over and say OK you win we'll just let you get on with it in Europe. As they didn't then Britain was far too big a threat to be left alone to recoupe and re-arm especially with the Commonwealth/Empire behind her. The obvious course would be a swift invasion as in France and Poland. The problem was the Channel or rather the British Navy that out gunned and out classed the German Navy and would blow any invasion fleet out of the water. The only answer to the British Navy would be to bomb it into submission and the only way that could be achieved was by gaining air superiority so the bombers could do their stuff. And that was what the Battle of Britain was about. Germany set out to destroy the airfields and planes of the RAF by bombing them out of existance. The RAF fighters went up to stop the bombers and the German fighters tried to protect their bombers. The odds were that Germany may have succeeded if Churchill hadn't ordered a bombing mission against Berlin in retaliation for German bombs hitting civilians around London. At that point the German command lost the plot and ordered an all out attack on London so giving fighter command some breathing space to get their act together.

If Britain had been successfully invaded then it would have been almost impossible for America to enter the war in Europe. Germany failed to get across the Channel and D-day was a mamouth undertaking for the allies. How do you suppose the Americans could have done it across the Atlantic? In the Pacific they could go from one island to the next building up a supply chain as they went.

Once America entered the war then Britain became, in effect, a giant aircraft carrier and staging post just off the coast of the European mainland.

Apart from a lack of resources probably the biggest obstacle that Germany faced throughout the war was her misfortune in placing a megalomaniac dictator and his cronies in absolute power who had a rather shakey grasp of tactics and resolutely refused to listen to those who had until he was forced to or it was all a little too late.

[No1 Cheese]

If i would have posted and pissed off as many people as this bloke i would have been banned long ago.

Cheese

[Sternjaeger II]

If i would have posted and pissed off as many people as this bloke i would have been banned long ago.

Cheese

I don't think anybody is pi$$ed off here, but thanks for your valuable opinion.

[blackmme]

I don't think anybody is pi$$ed off here, but thanks for your valuable opinion.

Certainly haven't pissed me off. I think your completely and utterly wrong and I believe that has been demonstrated on this thread but I have really enjoyed the discussion.
Carry on Stern.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Certainly haven't pissed me off. I think your completely and utterly wrong and I believe that has been demonstrated on this thread but I have really enjoyed the discussion.
Carry on Stern.

Regards Mike

as said before, agreeing to disagree would probably be the easiest way of this going around in circles ;)

[blackmme]

as said before, agreeing to disagree would probably be the easiest way of this going around in circles ;)

Good with me.

Guess what beer i'm drinking....:)

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Good with me.

Guess what beer i'm drinking....:)

Regards Mike

Spitfire? ;)

[blackmme]

Spitfire? ;)

:grin: cheers and have a good evening Stern.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

How did they cope with it?

Well....to sum it up, they never really coped with it, it hurt so bad they still feel it, and have had 'issues' with the Brits ever since.

[SNAFU]

Well....to sum it up, they never really coped with it, it hurt so bad they still feel it, and have had 'issues' with the Brits ever since.
Jepp, we really do, these crazies always drive on the wrong side of the road. But hey they have to pay 1,5€ for a can of beer, so thats understandable. :shock:

[bongodriver]

Jepp, we really do, these crazies always drive on the wrong side of the road. But hey they have to pay 1,5€ for a can of beer, so thats understandable. :shock:


this is a quote because I'm tired of typing loads....


Up to the late 1700's, everybody travelled on the left side of the road because it's the sensible option for feudal, violent societies of mostly right-handed people.

Jousting knights with their lances under their right arm naturally passed on each other's right, and if you passed a stranger on the road you walked on the left to ensure that your protective sword arm was between yourself and him.

Revolutionary France, however, overturned this practice as part of its sweeping social rethink. A change was carried out all over continental Europe by Napoleon.The reason it changed under Napoleon was because he was left handed his armies had to march on the right so he could keep his sword arm between him and any opponent.

From then on, any part of the world which was at some time part of the British Empire was thus left hand and any part colonised by the French was right hand.

In America, the French colonised the southern states (Louisiana for instance) and the Canadian east coast (Quebec). The Dutch colonised New York (or New Amsterdam). The Spanish and Portugese colonised the southern Americas. So The British were a minority in shaping the 'traffic'.

The drive-on-the-right policy was adopted by the USA, which was anxious to cast off all remaining links with its British colonial past

Once America drove on the right, left-side driving was ultimately doomed. If you wanted a good reliable vehicle, you bought American, for a period they only manufactured right-hand-drive cars.

From then on many countries changed out of necessity.

Today, the EC would like Britain to fall into line with the rest of Europe, but this is no longer possible. It would cost billions of pounds to change everything round.
The last European country to convert to driving on the right was Sweden in 1967. While everyone was getting used to the new system, they paid more attention and took more care, resulting in a reduction of the number of road accident casualties.

From September 2009 Samoa now drives on the left instead of the right.
The main reason for this is that they want to use right-hand-drive cars, for instance from Japan and New Zealand, which both drive on the left.

So there you go...the rest of you only do it because the French told you to........wonder what happened last time Germany was dictated to by the French......

OOOOHHHH! but the expensive beer thing hurts man! thats a low low blow :(

[Kurfürst]

So by that you're saying that if the LW achieved it's goals there wouldn't have been an invasion?

There was simply no invasion fleet ready within two weeks (remember

Long term effects of the Battle were that German High Command had to procede with the Russian Offensive before the UK was out of the war, the 2 fronted war was born. This pressured them into launching an attack 2 years (by Hilter's own reckoning) too early, which in turn led to the defeat in the East, surley even you can admit to that. Playing down the significance of the defence of Britian to make it fit your argument is silly.

That's all sounds very reasonable but the decision to move against Russia was not decided instead of carrying through the BoB campaign, but the other way around. If you read German papers (I suggest Klee's summary of sea lion, available at AAF Historical studies only), moving against Russia and postponing sea lion to 1941 was considered already in June-July 1940, before the air battle even begun.

This consideration was the effect of Soviet expansion in the East and the final straw in the decision was made in november 1940, after the Molotov visit to Berlin. There the Soviets suggested a "new order" in Eastern Europe which would effectively cut off Germany from all strategic resources. They hinted about annexing Rumania (oil), Bulgaria, Finnland (nickel) dividing up Turkey (chrome) and this put the two countries on an irreversible crash course much sooner than both would want. Maybe Stalin was just probing the Germans after their unexpected victory in the West, maybe they were serious, its difficult to tell, but the decision in Hitler's - who was actually quite desperate to avoid it during the Molotov meetings - mind that war with Russia was inevitable, and therefore he must strike first was made in November after these meetings. Barbarossa was finalized and authorized in the next month. All this had very little to with the BoB.

A draw would be neither side achieving it's goal. A win is one side achieving their goal. A defeat is not achieving your goal.

The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

[bongodriver]

The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).

Now this is perfectly reasonable, us Brits only view it as victory in the sense we saved our bacon from the immediate threat, which as quoted does equate to a defeat of the Germans immediate objectives (for the first time since the start of the war) nobody ever claimed at the time that the war was won at that moment, but we can look back now and say it was pretty much the 'key' turning point, so why can't us Brits just feel a little satisfied that that fight for our lives eventually led to the victory over the Nazi's......you know...the bit we fought on our own (i.e. no USA)

[Sutts]

There was simply no invasion fleet ready within two weeks (remember



That's all sounds very reasonable but the decision to move against Russia was not decided instead of carrying through the BoB campaign, but the other way around. If you read German papers (I suggest Klee's summary of sea lion, available at AAF Historical studies only), moving against Russia and postponing sea lion to 1941 was considered already in June-July 1940, before the air battle even begun.

This consideration was the effect of Soviet expansion in the East and the final straw in the decision was made in november 1940, after the Molotov visit to Berlin. There the Soviets suggested a "new order" in Eastern Europe which would effectively cut off Germany from all strategic resources. They hinted about annexing Rumania (oil), Bulgaria, Finnland (nickel) dividing up Turkey (chrome) and this put the two countries on an irreversible crash course much sooner than both would want. Maybe Stalin was just probing the Germans after their unexpected victory in the West, maybe they were serious, its difficult to tell, but the decision in Hitler's - who was actually quite desperate to avoid it during the Molotov meetings - mind that war with Russia was inevitable, and therefore he must strike first was made in November after these meetings. Barbarossa was finalized and authorized in the next month. All this had very little to with the BoB.



The German goal was to neutralize Britain, sought by various means (sea blockade, air campaign, the invasion bluff, diplomatic pressure etc.); this certainly failed in 1940. On the other hand I find Wilmott's analysis on the matter - Britain was not neutralized, but Germany was still an undisputable dominant position on the continent, which Britain could not hope to challange - that the BoB was from the military POV a campaign of small scale and limited significance, and change nothing about the strategic situation. It was however an important political/propaganda victory for the British, ie. that could encourage US involvement in the war (which was already taken as a foreign course by FDR regardless of Churchill, his problem was how to sell the idea to the US public and congress).


I keep seeing references to the outcome of the BoB being "insignificant". While I agree that it may have seemed that way to the Germans at the time, I would argue that from the West's point of view it could be seen as one of the most significant outcomes of the war. By failing to suppress the Brits the Germans were powerless to prevent the massive build up of the Allied heavy bomber force which caused such massive destruction to Germany, its cities and industry. It also enabled the build up and launch of the D-Day invasion fleet, without which victory (if possible) would have been a very Russian affair.

Without Britain holding out against Germany, the US may very well have focused its efforts on Japan alone. After all, from what other friendly territory could they have established such a huge fighting force and launched such effective strikes on the continent?

While I have a healthy respect for the ordinary German fighting man and the technology he had at his disposal, there can be no denying that the BoB was an embarrassing failure for Germany which tried very hard to beat the Brits into submission and came away with a bloody nose and not a great deal to show for it's not insignificant losses. It seems it is still quite a sore point.

Just my take on it.

BTW: Great job Bongodriver, I see you've had a bit of a mini-BoB on your hands here over the past few days. From what I've read, I suspect your prime antagonist is still in high school.

[Icebear]

Less than one year after the "Battle of Britain" Germany attacked Russia on June/21/1941 with 3 million soldiers, 3350 tanks, 7300 artillery guns and about 2000 aircrafts! IMO the Brits were just lucky that Hitler was an old lag and a hopeless ingenuous idiot who simply understimated the risk of a war on two frontlines and the importance of the "USS Great Britain". Fighting the WWI he should have been aware of this.

On the other hand; thank god that the Brits were lucky !

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany ;)

[bongodriver]

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany

Not just Germany.....England sucks at football full stop, I make emphasis on England so I dont offend the other UK member states, terribly touchy subject in this nation..

[Sutts]

Less than one year after the "Battle of Britain" Germany attacked Russia on June/21/1941 with 3 million soldiers, 3350 tanks, 7300 artillery guns and about 2000 aircrafts! IMO the Brits were just lucky that Hitler was an old lag and a hopeless ingenuous idiot who simply understimated the risk of a war on two frontlines and the importance of the "USS Great Britain". Fighting the WWI he should have been aware of this.

On the other hand; thank god that the Brits were lucky !

P.S.: But it seems they spend all their luck at that time cause as far as I know they still have no chance to win a penalty shootout against Germany ;)


Awesome numbers for sure but tanks and guns are not much use without air superiority. Goering was under such huge pressure to deliver on his promises that I don't believe for a second that he held back any air assets for the next big adventure. He would have thrown as many pilots and aircraft into battle as possible at the time to secure the victory he needed. I don't buy the argument that this was just a half hearted side show. They really meant business and the RAF can be proud to have prevented them from achieving their objective.

[NedLynch]

I'm all outta popcorn :(

That is the most reasonable post here. I feel your pain man.

Soooo, how about donuts then?:cool:

[kendo65]

Finally, had to comment on all this.

Stern, in order to defend your basic thesis that there was no winner in the Battle of Britain you seem to have reached a position where your logic has become so stretched it is in danger of snapping completely.

If I understand your argument you are now saying that the BOB wasn't a British victory because essentially no battle is ever a victory, and the only outcome that matters is final victory in the war.

Obviously the Allies lost many battles on the long road towards final victory in 45, and ultimately that is the key strategic goal of any conflict. But to say that no individual battle can be called as win or defeat is bending words and logic too far.

I also want to comment on your point about the propaganda aspect of the battle - how it was built and used by the British at the time. It's undoubtedly true that they made maximum mileage out of the battle - and for totally understandable reasons. To understand the significance it is important to leave aside the recent scholarly debate as to whether the Germans had the capacity to mount a successful invasion or whether Hitler even intended to, and to look at the situation as it was understood in Britain in June 1940.

Germany had smashed through France and the Low Countries in a matter of weeks. The BEF had been routed and had abandoned most of their equipment in France. Germany at that point seemed to be invincible, possessed of overwhelming strength, and sitting just across what to British eyes was an uncomfortably small stretch of water.

Once again, leave aside recent debate as to the true capacity of the German forces to mount an assault or the intentions of the German High Command. As far as the British were concerned in 1940 the situation was grave and of the utmost seriousness. People expected an invasion to come. This was no mere skirmish or sideshow - the country viewed it as a fight for its very existence.

That the RAF was able to resist the Luftwaffe offensive and ultimately force cancellation/abandonment of the German capacity for invasion was viewed as a victory. The nation collectively held its breath in Summer 1940, and let out a sigh of relief when it became apparent that the invasion threat was receding.

This was a key point in the early stages of the war - for the first time the Germans had not emerged with a clear victory. The effect on British morale was obviously huge and this was built up deliberately with wartime propaganda. The Battle of Britain assumed a kind of mythic significance in the British psyche. Funnily enough given your distaste, Bungay's book does a great job of peeling back the mythic element cast in 1940 and succeeding years and re-evaluating the events from new perspectives - that's a key element in his book and one that I thought was done very successfully.

I also have to say that I am a little concerned that some of our German friends seem to have great trouble dealing with the trauma caused to their own national psyche by WW2. There seems to be a split between distaste and revulsion at what the Nazis represented, and an understandable patriotic urge to support their own country. So we seem to get an almost hysterical defensiveness mixed with shame concerning Germany's defeat. It seems apparent that some (maybe the younger ones) harbour a worrying tendency to want to refight the battles, justify or rationalise away the events of the war.

Sorry for the cod psychology, but I'm just commenting honestly on what I've read in this thread. No offense intended.

[Bewolf]

Finally, had to comment on all this.

Stern, in order to defend your basic thesis that there was no winner in the Battle of Britain you seem to have reached a position where your logic has become so stretched it is in danger of snapping completely.

If I understand your argument you are now saying that the BOB wasn't a British victory because essentially no battle is ever a victory, and the only outcome that matters is final victory in the war.

Obviously the Allies lost many battles on the long road towards final victory in 45, and ultimately that is the key strategic goal of any conflict. But to say that no individual battle can be called as win or defeat is bending words and logic too far.

I also want to comment on your point about the propaganda aspect of the battle - how it was built and used by the British at the time. It's undoubtedly true that they made maximum mileage out of the battle - and for totally understandable reasons. To understand the significance it is important to leave aside the recent scholarly debate as to whether the Germans had the capacity to mount a successful invasion or whether Hitler even intended to, and to look at the situation as it was understood in Britain in June 1940.

Germany had smashed through France and the Low Countries in a matter of weeks. The BEF had been routed and had abandoned most of their equipment in France. Germany at that point seemed to be invincible, possessed of overwhelming strength, and sitting just across what to British eyes was an uncomfortably small stretch of water.

Once again, leave aside recent debate as to the true capacity of the German forces to mount an assault or the intentions of the German High Command. As far as the British were concerned in 1940 the situation was grave and of the utmost seriousness. People expected an invasion to come. This was no mere skirmish or sideshow - the country viewed it as a fight for its very existence.

That the RAF was able to resist the Luftwaffe offensive and ultimately force cancellation/abandonment of the German capacity for invasion was viewed as a victory. The nation collectively held its breath in Summer 1940, and let out a sigh of relief when it became apparent that the invasion threat was receding.

This was a key point in the early stages of the war - for the first time the Germans had not emerged with a clear victory. The effect on British morale was obviously huge and this was built up deliberately with wartime propaganda. The Battle of Britain assumed a kind of mythic significance in the British psyche. Funnily enough given your distaste, Bungay's book does a great job of peeling back the mythic element cast in 1940 and succeeding years and re-evaluating the events from new perspectives - that's a key element in his book and one that I thought was done very successfully.

I also have to say that I am a little concerned that some of our German friends seem to have great trouble dealing with the trauma caused to their own national psyche by WW2. There seems to be a split between distaste and revulsion at what the Nazis represented, and an understandable patriotic urge to support their own country. So we seem to get an almost hysterical defensiveness mixed with shame concerning Germany's defeat. It seems apparent that some (maybe the younger ones) harbour a worrying tendency to want to refight the battles, justify or rationalise away the events of the war.

Sorry for the cod psychology, but I'm just commenting honestly on what I've read in this thread. No offense intended.

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around. The rest of the post is rather sad..

[kendo65]

All he is saying that an historians definition of victory differs from that of an armchair general, and that war is not a follow up of closed chapters but an ongiong fluid living being that does not care much about individual (national) interpretation of artifically set dates. Stern should have broken off a long time ago already as it became clear that this is a concept of history most people can't appear to get their head wrapped around.

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.


The rest of the post is rather sad..

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

[bongodriver]

There are many 'historians' and many interpretations, Stern found the ones that appealed to his views and took them as 'gospel' and tried to convert the unholy, no he should have given up a long time ago because his argument became so full of holes from contradictions and hypocrasy.

National interpretation? I got the impression theres a few different nations that conform to the wider established theory, and not surprisingly a very specific National identity has different ideas

[Bewolf]

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.

In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yeah - to me it seems to be a classic post-modern take on events - perspectiveless.

Unfortunately national perspective counts for a lot. That's what people have been arguing about for the last 37 pages.



In my opinion this whole thread is rather sad.

In my opinion it's sad that in 2011 we still can't have an objective approach to historical events without someone taking the national perspective.

What you call "classic post-modern" (?) and "perspectiveless" is the only take a historian can afford to take on events. While at uni we studied propaganda a lot, but to understand the phenomenon itself, not as a search of truth.

In this thread I've been called names, I've been insulted by people that just popped by to have a go at the "high school kid", I've been accused of being anti-British, while all I did was motivating a point that isn't only mine, but of experts, historians and people of the time as well.

I'm not expecting everyone joining in a conversation to produce their qualifications (especially because we can all lie here), but one's preparation and cultural level easily emerges from what one writes, and frankly I felt a bit in the middle of a silly patriotic turmoil, but the wrong kind of patriotism, the one that sparks up only when some "old enemy" or someone else (read any foreigner) questions the pillars of your "culture". Britons are very protective of their heritage, and much rightly so, but are rarely capable of objective hindsight on it, there's a basic fear that someone somewhere is trying to deprive them of their achievements, and are ready to justify anything they say or do (or that the Kingdom says or does) regardless of it making sense or not. It's a very empire-like mentality, and if the old fashioned concept of empire has long gone, the mentality is still all there. I've heard many here celebrating the glories of the past and moaning about the lack of glory in the present, and rolling in and out of that nostalgia for the past it's what's left for many. I don't find this wrong, but it should still allow for some common sense and objectiveness.

My intention is not to deprive anyone with anything, brave people will be brave people forever, but western culture has been so biased in the portrayal of WW2 over the years that things have taken a very wrong shape. This is very dangerous, because it doesn't allow for an objective and unbiased judgement of history. This doesn't mean to me that the Nazis shouldn't be condemned as evil, but the Allies too committed questionable crimes and forced denial afterwards, so much that in a history talk meeting I attended some months ago, a gentleman arrived to define the city bombings during the Blitz as "not a war crime" simply to justify the actions of Bomber Harris and the drop of two atomic bombs over Japan, while there's no justification or theory in the world that will change the fact that these attacks were deliberate and a war crime as much as the German ones, so much that the 1949 Geneva Convention was all about human rights of civilians.

I've heard horrific explanations here "because it was getting boring" on which I deliberately did not comment, because it shows what little respect and objectiveness there is for the subject.

My take on Bungay is because in the world of academia he isn't (yet) considered worth mentioning, and even if my ideas seem to agree more with him than with James Holland (but then again it was semantics, Dutch or whoever it was picked strategically short sentences and put them out of context), I still don't repute his approach an academic one.

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and thank you Bewolf, as usual your ability to sum up concepts in a few lines is outstanding and spot on :)

[bongodriver]

You've been called names? Seriously...grow a pair and man up, take a look back at some of the crap that got flung my way.

Quit with all this island banjo crap, are you a historian or a psychologist, read the original topic and answer me why us island rednecks have had to endure 30 odd pages of insults against our nation and a denial of any achievement, some have suggested we should let it go because it's history........doesn't
Seem to apply to you though.

My getting boring comment was just sarcasm, but if you want to make an island mentality issue out of it what can I do.

[Sternjaeger II]

You've been called names? Seriously...grow a pair and man up, take a look back at some of the crap that got flung my way.
grow a pair? man up? Seriously Bongo? :confused:
Besides, was it me flinging that crap at you?


Quit with all this island banjo crap, are you a historian or a psychologist, read the original topic and answer me why us island rednecks have had to endure 30 odd pages of insults against our nation and a denial of any achievement, some have suggested we should let it go because it's history........doesn't
Seem to apply to you though.

I wasn't insulting your nation, I was just trying to give an assessment that I know would have proven unpopular among the average Briton. I care about the objectiveness of history, not the nationalistic takes on it. Unfortunately I'm afraid that's all you can do instead.

My getting boring comment was just sarcasm, but if you want to make an island mentality issue out of it what can I do.
yeah, you see sarcasm the way is used in Britain is considered out of place in many other cultures. Just because we speak your language it doesn't mean that we also think like you do.

[Bewolf]

NP Stern. My gripe with this thread is not the pride of british nationals for the war and the conduct of the people living on the british isles at that time, it's simply the expectation that those very tight and focused views on these events are being taken as a matter of course in an international forum. That is a bit of a pretentious attitude, especially given the fact that any views differing from the british mainstream are reinterpretated as offensive and a direct assault on british achievements.

[bongodriver]

My issue is that I got called a Nationalist after my first post because I just said the english channel was a weak excuse for the LW performance in the BOB.

My blood began to boil when this post was alowed to go without challenge...

After Dunkirk you didn't had more left but tea to offer!!
Otherwise why should Churchill Lend & Lease some 50 war weary US Destroyers?
Ah yes because you ran out even on tea.
And your British Army sucked on every major Battle until the USA showed up at the ETO, the same is for the PTO!
But that's maybe because they didn't had allways Canadians and Australians on their side, they know how to fight!

No apparently I have no right to be insulted, because I'm not allowed to assciate myself with my contry's past....unless it's about something bad the Brits did.....go figure.

[bongodriver]

yeah, you see sarcasm the way is used in Britain is considered out of place in many other cultures. Just because we speak your language it doesn't mean that we also think like you do.

Well I'm awfully sorry about that....it's mainly a symptom of having preserved our culture by not being beaten in conflict and assimilated into another, but you are apparently a master theorist on what the British mentality is....yet I just had to explain that one to you.

[PeterPanPan]

Sternjäger let them dream on about the BoB as their Big Victory, ok they even won the war (well with a "tiny lil bit" of US help) but afterwards they sucked permanently since 1945, i mean look at them their Cities are Crime infested shitholes with looting hordes, their economy is not worth to mention and of course their Football National team, which also sucks since 1966.

Reported. Idiotic, tactless and offensive post.

[Bewolf]

My issue is that I got called a Nationalist after my first post because I just said the english channel was a weak excuse for the LW performance in the BOB.

My blood began to boil when this post was alowed to go without challenge...



No apparently I have no right to be insulted, because I'm not allowed to assciate myself with my contry's past....unless it's about something bad the Brits did.....go figure.

I dare say it was challenged quite massively enough =)

You are right, posts like those are uncalled for, to be expected in such a debate but uncalled for nevertheless. Best course of action here is to ignore them and concentrate on
substance, else everything goes down the drain.

[Bewolf]

Well I'm awfully sorry about that....it's mainly a symptom of having preserved our culture by not being beaten in conflict and assimilated into another, but you are apparently a master theorist on what the British mentality is....yet I just had to explain that one to you.

Hope you are aware that others could regard such a matter of fact as "stagnation". And if you go by history, this very attitude usually preludes a negative development in a nations fortunes. It seriously is not 1945 anymore, regardless of what Rupert Murdoch says.

[bongodriver]

Hope you are aware that others could regard such a matter of fact as "stagnation". And if you go by history, this very attitude usually preludes a negative development in a nations fortunes. It seriously is not 1945 anymore, regardless of what Rupert Murdoch says.

Quite agree....the Germans should have just accepted what happened in WWI, then this conversation wouldn't be happening, but then the 4th of july celebrations didn't seem to hurt the US any.......

[Sternjaeger II]

My issue is that I got called a Nationalist after my first post because I just said the english channel was a weak excuse for the LW performance in the BOB.

My blood began to boil when this post was alowed to go without challenge...



No apparently I have no right to be insulted, because I'm not allowed to assciate myself with my contry's past....unless it's about something bad the Brits did.....go figure.

It was an uncalled for post, but as you know I can only guarantee for my own posts, not others'. I hope you're not comparing my approach to that one though.

Well I'm awfully sorry about that....it's mainly a symptom of having preserved our culture by not being beaten in conflict and assimilated into another, but you are apparently a master theorist on what the British mentality is....yet I just had to explain that one to you.

I would look at a foreigner's perspective on my country as a refreshing and new one, not necessarily a negative one: as much as I mentioned negative chapters of your history, I also mentioned glorious ones. The reaction I got instead is similar to someone that knows his past is imperfect and gets all aggressive when mentioned.

Let's not be naive, there's no perfect country out there, we all come from somewhere where someone at some point said "mmmh I think we screwed this up a lil bit".

[bongodriver]

I dare say it was challenged quite massively enough =)

You are right, posts like those are uncalled for, to be expected in such a debate but uncalled for nevertheless. Best course of action here is to ignore them and concentrate on
substance, else everything goes down the drain.

This I genuinely agree with too, and I am not denying getting a little hot heade at times.....more a symptom of being human than British.

[Sternjaeger II]

look at us, still debating over this at 9am!! Aren't we a sad bunch?! :mrgreen:

time for a black coffee me thinks!

[bongodriver]

It was an uncalled for post, but as you know I can only guarantee for my own posts, not others'. I hope you're not comparing my approach to that one though.



I would look at a foreigner's perspective on my country as a refreshing and new one, not necessarily a negative one. The reaction I got instead is similar to someone that knows his past is imperfect and gets all aggressive when mentioned.

Let's not be naive, there's no perfect country out there, we all come from somewhere where someone at some point said "mmmh I think we screwed this up a lil bit".

Again I will stress there are no denials of any conduct good or bad from my part, I just don't get the point of all this revision on a past achievement, what was wrong with the established theory, why are people using so much of their time on this, will the world be a better place?

[Bewolf]

Quite agree....the Germans should have just accepted what happened in WWI, then this conversation wouldn't be happening, but then the 4th of july celebrations didn't seem to hurt the US any.......

If you can sincerely tell me that the UK would have accepted the same results had they lost WW I, this argument may hold some truth. (For perspective, that would have ment giving up Wales, Scotland, Ireland (all areas without native english populations), all british colonies, demilitarisation of the Midlands under threat of France to occupy them if the huge compensation money was not to be paid.)

I personaly agree, Germany should have accepted it. And it probably would have without the added strains black Friday brought to the world.

In regards to the US, I dare say that WWII changed the US as fundamentally. If you compare the US before and after WW2, the attitudes displayed towards the world had utterly changed. If for the better or worse is debateable.

[bongodriver]

look at us, still debating over this at 9am!! Aren't we a sad bunch?! :mrgreen:

time for a black coffee me thinks!

Funny I was thinking exactly the same......and drinking gallons of tea I might add :grin:

[Bewolf]

look at us, still debating over this at 9am!! Aren't we a sad bunch?! :mrgreen:

time for a black coffee me thinks!

Milk, please!

yeah, i am a Sissi, hehe.

[Bewolf]

Again I will stress there are no denials of any conduct good or bad from my part, I just don't get the point of all this revision on a past achievement, what was wrong with the established theory, why are people using so much of their time on this, will the world be a better place?

Yes, actually, I do think the world will be a better place if you take other perspectives but your own at least into consideration. The planet is growing awfully small at an ever greater pace, and our example here alone speaks volumes about different nationalities having ever more discourse. The times of comfy nationalities only caring for their own are coming to a dead end, in the modern world that means, in the best case, stagnation and losing attachment to the rest of the world, in the worst one it is potentially dangerous.

[bongodriver]

If you can sincerely tell me that the UK would have accepted the same results had they lost WW I

it's a good question....but I dare say there would have been bugger all we could have done about it........and theres a good chance the Welsh, Scottish and N irish wouldn't have had too much trouble coming to terms with it.

[bongodriver]

Yes, actually, I do think the world will be a better place if you take other perspectives but your own at least into consideration. The planet is growing awfully small at an ever greater pace, and our example here alone speaks volumes about different nationalities having ever more discourse. The times of comfy nationalities only caring for their own are coming to a dead end, in the modern world that means, in the best case, stagnation and losing attachment to the rest of the world, in the worst one it is potentially dangerous.

Hmmm......history repeats itself, all it takes if for the world to drop it's guard in false sense of security and whammo, some nutjob is trying to take over the world, I'm sorry but if the rest of the world want's to be sheep for the next time thats your choice, I like what we have now.

and I'm afraid a bit of National pride will give the incentive to defend it.

[Rickusty]

IMO, but only as a "political scientist and international relationist" and not as a great historian, I would just say this:

1) I am not sure if Germany could have invaded the UK, just because the Royal Navy would have prevented it.
Maybe sacrificing itself, but nonetheless preveting a great german invasion.

2) The forces in the air were more or less equal, considering all the factors included: Britons on the defence, on their soil, the Channel, radars etc... The RAF would have not been easily liquidated by the LW, a "tactical" air force in 1940.
It was not , IMO, a decisive victory by either the RAF or the LW. It was more of a sign that the British were able to defend themselves, and succesfully, against air attacks.

2) It was the Royal Navy that was fundamental in obtaining victory over the Axis in the WW2 on the western front.
Italy lost the North African campaign not because there were not enough Italian soldiers (and Germans of the Afrika Korps),but because we were not supplied succesfully by our Regia Marina. We had TERRIFIC losses starting from late 1941 on, caused by the presence of the Royal Navy and its aggressive attacks against our main naval supply routes.
Malta was also an important naval base just in the middle of the route.

3) Maritime powers have been (and probably are) quite often the victorios ones.
The Normandy invasion would have never happened had without the great combination of the huge British and the American navies combined.

4) Germany quite always suffered by the chronic lack of a "wide strategic vision" in their wars. Tactically they were great, strategically they just weren't.
We, Italians, were strategically disastrous.... and tactically, so and so...
The British were not.
The thing is: The Axis could win battles, the Allies could win wars.
Just think about the decision to not invade Malta in the summer of 1942 (decision chose by Rommel himself, with the approval of Hitler, not listening to Mussolini and Kesselring in Rome) when all the plans for "Operation C3" had been precisely studied and programmed and the Ramcke Brig. and the Folgore Airborne would have had a decisive role.
In hindsight I say though: PERSONALLY that decision was a sound one for me, as my grandpa was in Sicily in the 1th inf. Superga Division as a medic and that division was chosen for the landing.
Had it happened, maybe I wouldn't be here today :cool:

5) The invasion of the Soviet Union, enough said....
Again, many wrong strategic decisions made by the Germans (or Hitler, you name it)

But talking about all of this now in 2011 , just reminds me of how lucky we are now, and how has the world changed...
How nationalities have somehow lost their "great power" they had, how we live in a totally different world, where country barriers are
fading away, economy has become (luckily or unfortunately, you decide it....) the most important element in every institution, countries lose their
sovereign powers which is in turn delegated to "higher authorities", how ideologies
have faded away (again, lucikly or unluckily, your choice) and youngsters doesn't follow politics in the same way as our fathers did.
The "concept" of "Country" has changed, and we live in a totally different world nowadays...


Cheers
Rick

[Sternjaeger II]

Again I will stress there are no denials of any conduct good or bad from my part, I just don't get the point of all this revision on a past achievement, what was wrong with the established theory, why are people using so much of their time on this, will the world be a better place?

I suppose it's not the specific case of the Battle of Britain, it's more a case of assigning improper definitions to events and giving special meanings to events that were important only in hindsight for the sake of national pride.

Was BoB a necessary battle? No.
Did it bring any change to the conditions at the beginning of the conflict? No.
Was it a victory for the British? It surely was for morale and propaganda.
Was it a military victory? No.

It's an important debate for many historians, and it's getting harder to deal with when thinking of recent conflicts (from the 80s onwards).

[bongodriver]

Was BoB a necessary battle? No.

Are you really sure about this......seriously, not necessary from whose perspective? and why the hell did it happen if thats the case?

Did it bring any change to the conditions at the beginning of the conflict? No.

Obviously because you can't change the actual events of history.....thats only done in forums, what it did do was change the conditions at the time i.e. the Germans expected to invade britain and they were denied so.

Was it a victory for the British? It surely was for morale and propaganda.

and our self preservation....somebody comes at you with a knife intending to stab you, you fight back and sefend yourself successfuly and escape the attack....thats a win for the defender and a lose for the attacker, even though he still has the knife and possibly the intent.

Was it a military victory? No.

So what....the RAF and LW are not military?

[Bewolf]

Hmmm......history repeats itself, all it takes if for the world to drop it's guard in false sense of security and whammo, some nutjob is trying to take over the world, I'm sorry but if the rest of the world want's to be sheep for the next time thats your choice, I like what we have now.

and I'm afraid a bit of National pride will give the incentive to defend it.

That is a highly probelamtic stance. If every potential development gets rejected just because something "could" go wrong, then I'd say that is a sorry and rather cynical state of mind.

Today most people on this planet have ready access to information far, far surpassing the possebilities of any era before. They also have access to other countries news and motivations unprecedendet in history. In all seriousness, if ppl do not get their act together under such positive circumstances, they probably never will. The implications of that for a world that just passed the 7 billion mark are, well, not so good.

This is just a matter of will, nothing more.

[bongodriver]

That is a highly probelamtic stance. If every potential development gets rejected just because something "could" go wrong, then I'd say that is a sorry and rather cynical state of mind.

Today most people on this planet have ready access to information far, far surpassing the possebilities of any era before. They also have access to other countries news and motivations unprecedendet in history. In all seriousness, if ppl do not get their act together under such positive circumstances, they probably never will. The implications of that for a world that just passed the 7 billion mark are, well, not so good.

This is just a matter of will, nothing more.

Well maybe.......all I see is the EU, what a eutopian shiny rainbow coloured happy melting pot that is:rolleyes:, Islamic fundamentalism....Hmmmm.....I like my head just where it is, no offence to them but I dont want to be forced to wear sandals and wail about Allah all the time, potentially the chinese are lining up for something big.........not sure, but if so I don't know what to expect with that one.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Reported. Idiotic, tactless and offensive post.

Peter, you're right but if you think this thread is bad have a peep at the 'water cannon' thread in the pilots lounge. It took a supreme effort of will not to respond there, in which it is 'open season' on the UK with numerous frankly juvenile, offensive and utterly preposterous insults. How they have gone un moderated is beyond me.....but that's not my call.

I had to laugh though when I realised that its an ITALIAN who lives and works here dishing out the abuse on that thread.....LMAO.:grin: Oh, and according to a Mr El Aurens our country is en route to being a 'cesspool'. This from a 58 year old US bloke. Charmed. Thanks pal. That's ok though, I'll take my 'cesspool' where I'm 8x less likely to be randomly murdered over his any day of the week. No offence, of course. :grin:

I don't take this rubbish seriously. Why? Because I know for a fact had they would never say these things to a persons face....and that is why they do it here. Had they done so, they would most likely be swiftly hospitalized, and when they emerged from their coma (about 3 months later) would probably feel very apologetic about the whole affair. :grin: IRL, I can guarantee they'd be as nice as ninepence; and that's what cracks me up. Hilarious. The internets, eh? :grin:

I have never 'reported' anyone, and never will. I don't believe in it and that's the way it is. I do however understand why you did.

Cheers.

[Sternjaeger II]

Are you really sure about this......seriously, not necessary from whose perspective? and why the hell did it happen if thats the case?

Hitler could have waited to bring such an attack on Britain, but he didn't, he was afraid that waiting too long before dealing with the "British matter" could be counterproductive. It's probably this haste that cost him that battle.

Obviously because you can't change the actual events of history.....thats only done in forums, what it did do was change the conditions at the time i.e. the Germans expected to invade britain and they were denied so.

yes, but it didn't affect the offensive potential of the German machine, as some believe. The RAF didn't give the Luftwaffe a blow from which they never recovered: they both lost similar numbers of potential, but soon caught up with production and achieved immense tactical experience from the battle.


and our self preservation....somebody comes at you with a knife intending to stab you, you fight back and sefend yourself successfuly and escape the attack....thats a win for the defender and a lose for the attacker, even though he still has the knife and possibly the intent.

fair enough, but this is again your personal achievement. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the battle.

So what....the RAF and LW are not military?

of course they are, but for the two air forces it was a mere war of attrition, neither of the two was annihilated by it.

Why there isn't such a strong battle identification with the one that raged over Europe after the Americans joined, which was longer, more dramatic and above all more decisive than the Battle of Britain itself?

The Battle of Britain is considered more by a conflict per se here, unlike the rest that happened, and that's again only because of propaganda needs.

[Icebear]

I have never 'reported' anyone, and never will. I don't believe in it and that's the way it is. I do however understand why you did.

Cheers.

+1

[Sternjaeger II]

Peter, you're right but if you think this thread is bad have a peep at the 'water cannon' thread in the pilots lounge. It took a supreme effort of will not to respond there, in which it is 'open season' on the UK with numerous frankly juvenile, offensive and utterly preposterous insults. How they have gone un moderated is beyond me.....but that's not my call.

what does it have to do with this? And why don't you bless us with your supreme view on that matter in that thread? :rolleyes:


I had to laugh though when I realised that its an ITALIAN who lives and works here dishing out the abuse on that thread.....LMAO.:grin:

so? Is being an Italian a bad thing now? Does the fact that Im a foreigner make my judgement less relevant, or isn't my tax money as good as yours? You sir fit perfectly in the category of the "worst that England can offer".


Oh, and according to a Mr El Aurens our country is en route to being a 'cesspool'. This from a 58 year old US bloke. Charmed. Thanks pal. That's ok though, I'll take my 'cesspool' where I'm 8x less likely to be randomly murdered over his any day of the week. No offence, of course. :grin:

..yep, talking stereotypes, as I said, the worst England.


I don't take this rubbish seriously. Why? Because I know for a fact had they would never say these things to a persons face....and that is why they do it here. Had they done so, they would most likely be swiftly hospitalized, and when they emerged from their coma (about 3 months later) would probably feel very apologetic about the whole affair. :grin: IRL, I can guarantee they'd be as nice as ninepence; and that's what cracks me up. Hilarious. The internets, eh? :grin:


Ah, another keyboard hero! It goes without saying that talking about adult, mature matters can't be done with little people of your stance, but if I really had to, I can assure you that I would know how to defend myself from someone who can't take a normal conversation and turn to physical aggression to make his point valid. But then again, you would never do it yourself, would you? :rolleyes:


I have never 'reported' anyone, and never will. I don't believe in it and that's the way it is. I do however understand why you did.

Cheers.

probably because you find amusement in forum wars. I, on the contrary, do believe in the respect of forum rules.

[Bewolf]

Well maybe.......all I see is the EU, what a eutopian shiny rainbow coloured happy melting pot that is:rolleyes:, Islamic fundamentalism....Hmmmm.....I like my head just where it is, no offence to them but I dont want to be forced to wear sandals and wail about Allah all the time, potentially the chinese are lining up for something big.........not sure, but if so I don't know what to expect with that one.

And you do not think that this stance is extrmely narrow and not doing any kind of justice towards both the EU and muslims in general? IMHO that threat perception is totally blown out of proportion. But that would be worth a thread on it its own

Being careful and on the watch is one thing, seeing dangers and threats around every corner is another one.

Provocative questions:

Could it be possible that the UK got burned so much in WW2 that it got its spyche damaged, like a person that got mugged always being afraid of the dark afterwards?

Why does that not apply to countries that suffered much more in WW2, like Poland, Russia or the Benelux countries?

Why is it that the UK had quite good relations with Germany until reunification, then afterwards starting one tabloid campaign after the other?

Those are honest question because quite franky, that is how some UK behaviours come over here.

[JG5_emil]

I suppose it's not the specific case of the Battle of Britain, it's more a case of assigning improper definitions to events and giving special meanings to events that were important only in hindsight for the sake of national pride.

Was BoB a necessary battle? No.
Did it bring any change to the conditions at the beginning of the conflict? No.
Was it a victory for the British? It surely was for morale and propaganda.
Was it a military victory? No.

It's an important debate for many historians, and it's getting harder to deal with when thinking of recent conflicts (from the 80s onwards).

I really don't agree with this.

BOB was necessary for Hitler because he absolutely didn't want a war on two fronts. He knew he had to take the UK out of the equation because it would be a nasty thorn in his side as he turned east as proved to be the case especially when the bombing of Germany started but also because the UK and Empire had a large economy and would support Russian with materials and would continue to have a very powerful naval force which made bringing in materials from around the world much harder. Had he defeated Britain he could have had access to the oil in the Middle East as a starter.

The conditions at the beginning of the BOB were that Germany was an unbeaten force and had almost mythical attributes assigned to it. The out come of the BOB was enough to bring in massive amounts American credit. This saw the USA producing huge amounts of arms and Churchill cunningly believed that this would make it much more possible for the USA to be drawn into the war.

At the beginning of the BOB Britain stood alone, it looked like defeat was likely to the rest of the world and there was a great chance that the USA might twist Britain's arm in to negotiating (a bit like Suez) or become a political outcast. Churchill feared that Britain would become the most hated country on the planet because he refused to negotiate!

The victory was more than propaganda or moral and I agree it wasn't really a military victory (it was stalemate in military terms) BUT it was a political victory

[bongodriver]

Hitler could have waited to bring such an attack on Britain, but he didn't, he was afraid that waiting too long before dealing with the "British matter" could be counterproductive. It's probably this haste that cost him that battle.

Sorry but that is not what constitutes uneccessary, you see here again you are just downplaying the significance by using the German perspective here, clear example of your bias here, you are obviously enamoured with a strange romanticism about the Germans, facct is they 'did' come to fight and the British found it necessary to stop them, that has nothing to do with British nationalistic views.

yes, but it didn't affect the offensive potential of the German machine, as some believe. The RAF didn't give the Luftwaffe a blow from which they never recovered: they both lost similar numbers of potential, but soon caught up with production and achieved immense tactical experience from the battle.

Semantics again, an attempt at downplaying the significance through some 'dictionary' deffinition, the US won their war of independence(with help from the French)....were the British anhilated?


fair enough, but this is again your personal achievement. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the battle.

Oh but it does, it's a personal event for both parties, the defender won his objective (survival and escape) the attacker lost his objective (killing the victim) the battle ends there, the war between these two hasn't, you are just not making sense here mate.

of course they are, but for the two air forces it was a mere war of attrition, neither of the two was annihilated by it.

Why there isn't such a strong battle identification with the one that raged over Europe after the Americans joined, which was longer, more dramatic and above all more decisive than the Battle of Britain itself?

The Battle of Britain is considered more by a conflict per se here, unlike the rest that happened, and that's again only because of propaganda needs.

Ther you go with that anhillation stuff again.....why?

this topic started on the subject of the BOB, I thought it was etiquette to keep threads 'on topic' so the wider picture of the war has no relevance in this thread, that is not a denial of it's significance....just forum etiquette.

Conflict..battle...skirmish....WTF? give it whatever label you want, it happened, it was a fight, we won our objective....that is plain fact, that is all we celebrate about it, nobody suggests it was a total defeat of the wider German military...it was simply a fight the British won and it's wider significance became apparent later....yay lucky for us.....we survived that one and it all turned out pretty f***ing good in the end....lets celebrate it for it contribution for a better world wiithout the Nazis.......is that such a big deal?

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

what does it have to do with this? And why don't you bless us with your supreme view on that matter in that thread? :rolleyes:


so? Is being an Italian a bad thing now? You sir fit perfectly in the category of the "worst that England can offer".


..yep, talking stereotypes, as I said, the worst England.



Ah, another keyboard hero! It goes without saying that talking about adult, mature matters can't be done with little people of your stance, but if I really had to, I can assure you that I would know how to defend myself from someone who can't take a normal conversation and turn to physical aggression to make his point valid. But then again, you would never do it yourself, would you? :rolleyes:



probably because you find amusement in forum wars. I, on the contrary, do believe in the respect of forum rules.

Alessandro Bonny lad (yep the infamous 'Stern' and 'respecter of forum rules' from the Ubi Zoo who has been banned more times that I can remember....wonder why) I am anything but 'little' but FYI have threatened no one. :grin: Just making the point that 'key board warriors' (nice self awareness there) who are unconscionably rude on the internet are rarely so IRL, and I'm sure you are very nice to your English colleagues and those who pay your wages. I found the irony of an Italian waxing lyrical about how 'buggered' my country is amusing. Because it is. :grin:

I have however never met an Italian I did not like (usually decent folk), till you. You are obnoxious, arrogant, ill mannered and not particularly bright. PM me if you'd like to discuss things further. Otherwise on with your pathetic UK hate crusade. I LOL in your general direction. Cin cin! :grin:

Mark.

[bongodriver]

And you do not think that this stance is extrmely narrow and not doing any kind of justice towards both the EU and muslims in general? IMHO that threat perception is totally blown out of proportion. But that would be worth a thread on it its own

Being careful and on the watch is one thing, seeing dangers and threats around every corner is another one.

Provocative questions:

Could it be possible that the UK got burned so much in WW2 that it got its spyche damaged, like a person that got mugged always being afraid of the dark afterwards?

Why does that not apply to countries that suffered much more in WW2, like Poland, Russia or the Benelux countries?

Why is it that the UK had quite good relations with Germany until reunification, then afterwards starting one tabloid campaign after the other?

Those are honest question because quite franky, that is how some UK behaviours come over here.

Well I was clear about Islamic fundamentalism and not Islam as a whole...or do you put them in the same category?

The EU in a romantic aspect is what could have been if Germany unified europe without all the ethnic cleansing stuff etc......it could have been good, I wonder why it is so difficult to get the world to unify...it's almost like we all like who we are and dont like change.......not just the British.

Well I can't comment on why some tabloids behave like they do or indeed some of my fellow countrymen, but labelling us all because of this is no better than the stuff you accuse us of no? I like Germans, always had respect for them, and admire their technical ability, and to be honest whats the point in celebrating a military victory over an adversary you consider inferior....surely that would just be hollow, no we were faced with a far superior opponent and that gives a little bit of satisfaction to an underdog.

[Sternjaeger II]

Sorry but that is not what constitutes uneccessary, you see here again you are just downplaying the significance by using the German perspective here, clear example of your bias here, you are obviously enamoured with a strange romanticism about the Germans, facct is they 'did' come to fight and the British found it necessary to stop them, that has nothing to do with British nationalistic views.

I dunno how to explain this point anymore :confused:


Semantics again, an attempt at downplaying the significance through some 'dictionary' deffinition, the US won their war of independence(with help from the French)....were the British anhilated?

the British dominion over the US mainland was annihilated, the US started a new independent reality, that sounds like a win to me. At the blurry end of the Battle of Britain, apart for reputations and morale, nothing else changed.


Oh but it does, it's a personal event for both parties, the defender won his objective (survival and escape) the attacker lost his objective (killing the victim) the battle ends there, the war between these two hasn't, you are just not making sense here mate.

you (badly) repelled a bombing attack that was carried on for several months, their command was tired to wait any longer on Goering's fail, they moved onto something else, end of story.

You gained some heroes to celebrate, both countries learned LOADS in terms of experience, soon the Germans forgot about it thanks to the early successes of Barbarossa. It was just a phase of a more complicated war, not a battle per se.


Ther you go with that anhillation stuff again.....why?

because in a total war the success is obtained only by complete annihilation of the adversary's offensive potential, subduing it to an unconditioned surrender.

this topic started on the subject of the BOB, I thought it was etiquette to keep threads 'on topic' so the wider picture of the war has no relevance in this thread, that is not a denial of it's significance....just forum etiquette.

Conflict..battle...skirmish....WTF? give it whatever label you want, it happened, it was a fight, we won our objective....that is plain fact, that is all we celebrate about it, nobody suggests it was a total defeat of the wider German military...it was simply a fight the British won and it's wider significance became apparent later....yay lucky for us.....we survived that one and it all turned out pretty f***ing good in the end....lets celebrate it for it contribution for a better world wiithout the Nazis.......is that such a big deal?

I tried to, and it was my original point, but then all kind of $hit started flying in every direction..
Uh and let's not forget this: the western civilised world is grateful to the Allies for the efforts they made to liberate us from the Nazi scum.

[bongodriver]

I dunno how to explain this point anymore

Yeah you got nothing left.....fail

the British dominion over the US mainland was annihilated, the US started a new independent reality, that sounds like a win to me. At the blurry end of the Battle of Britain, apart for reputations and morale, nothing else changed.

But the British military was not anhilated, and we could have chosen to fight back, we just gave up, not worth the effort with all othe commitments (just like the Germans), yeah funny how this argument suits you here.

you (badly) repelled a bombing attack that was carried on for several months, their command was tired to wait any longer on Goering's fail, they moved onto something else, end of story.

You gained some heroes to celebrate, both countries learned LOADS in terms of experience, soon the Germans forgot about it thanks to the early successes of Barbarossa. It was just a phase of a more complicated war, not a battle per se.

Ah so we fought badly now, what happened to the description of exemplary regarding our effort in an earlier post (yeah take a look, you really did say it), sniff...sniff....I smell hypocricy and contradiction again.

because in a total war the success is obtained only by complete annihilation of the adversary's offensive potential, subduing it to an unconditioned surrender.

That is a condition required to win a war....not a battle....loike the 'battle of britain' which was a 'win' for the Brits......grab that thesaurus....win and victory are practically the same thing non?

I tried to, and it was my original point, but then all kind of $hit started flying in every direction..
Uh and let's not forget this: the western civilised world is grateful to the Allies for the efforts they made to liberate us from the Nazi scum.

That s**t flew as soon as people started rubbishing any part the British played in the allied effort, like we just arent worthy of being associated with it....no for most of the Germanophiles her Allies = the US strictly

[Sternjaeger II]

Alessandro Bonny lad (yep the infamous 'Stern' and 'respecter of forum rules' from the Ubi Zoo who has been banned more times that I can remember....wonder why)

Who's Alessandro Bonny? :confused: I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else? NEVER been on the Ubi Zoo either?


I am anything but 'little' but FYI have threatened no one. :grin: Just making the point that 'key board warriors' (nice self awareness there) who are unconscionably rude on the internet are rarely so IRL, and I'm sure you are very nice to your English colleagues and those who pay your wages. I found the irony of an Italian waxing lyrical about how 'buggered' my country is amusing. Because it is. :grin:

I don't understand why you're turning this thing into a personal beef with me, I don't know who you are, what I know is that you sound like a bit of a nut-job man :!:

And btw your message, albeit hypothetical in its form, is a form of threatening. You might want to re-read what you wrote?

I am a citizen of the world for the matter, I have lived in the US and several European countries before because of my job, and frankly I don't see why the fact that I have Italian origins adds something different to the value of my opinion. If I complain, I complain as a citizen and taxpayer, not as an Italian. I'm afraid that yours comes out a bit like mere racial slur (for which you've already been reported btw).


I have however never met an Italian I did not like (usually decent folk), till you. You are obnoxious, arrogant, ill mannered and not particularly bright. PM me if you'd like to discuss things further. Otherwise on with your pathetic UK hate crusade. I LOL in your general direction. Cin cin! :grin:

Mark.

Well good for you sir.. :confused:

[Sternjaeger II]

Bongo, frankly I'm not here to win an argument, I have my ideas and they will hardly change unless I'm proven wrong by fact that I repute relevant.

Besides, seeing the latest contribution of this RCAF Orville or whatever his name is, I wonder why I even bother..

double standards are FTW here lately..

[bongodriver]

Bongo, frankly I'm not here to win an argument,
Besides, seeing the latest contribution of this RCAF Orville or whatever his name is, I wonder why I even bother..

double standards are FTW here lately..

Really?....so youre just here for the argument, I saw at least 2 posts where you promised no further contribution yet you are still here displaying massive double standards.....

I have my ideas and they will hardly change unless I'm proven wrong by fact that I repute relevant.

Had to quote this bit again....it's just so immaculate in its hipocricy

[ATAG_Dutch]

My take on Bungay is because in the world of academia he isn't (yet) considered worth mentioning, and even if my ideas seem to agree more with him than with James Holland (but then again it was semantics, Dutch or whoever it was picked strategically short sentences and put them out of context), I still don't repute his approach an academic one.

This seems to confirm what I've suspected for a while, i.e. you don't appear to have read Bungay's book.

Consequently your opinions of Bungay's book are not your own and are based on the opinions of others.

Regurgitation of hearsay is no different whatsoever to propaganda in this context and also demostrates a good deal of bias.

Given the above quote, I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read James Holland's book also, which you advocated as being 'the definitive book'. More hearsay?

Your 'historical references' so far in this thread seem to come from either Wikipedia or a bonus DVD. Surprising from one who considers himself a member of the historical acadaemia.

I'd be happy to stand corrected of course.

Sorry folks, this is a bit out of context from the way the thread has progressed.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Who's Alessandro Bonny? :confused: I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else? NEVER been on the Ubi Zoo either?


I don't understand why you're turning this thing into a personal beef with me, I don't know who you are, what I know is that you sound like a bit of a nut-job man :!:

And btw your message, albeit hypothetical in its form, is a form of threatening. You might want to re-read what you wrote?

I am a citizen of the world for the matter, I have lived in the US and several European countries before because of my job, and frankly I don't see why the fact that I have Italian origins adds something different to the value of my opinion. If I complain, I complain as a citizen and taxpayer, not as an Italian. I'm afraid that yours comes out a bit like mere racial slur (for which you've already been reported btw).



Well good for you sir.. :confused:

*sigh*. You can add 'grass' and 'fibber' to that list too. I'm afraid it is you yourself that is the grade A head case, just look at the amount of time you have devoted to knocking the UK. Obvious issues. If you hate it here that much then 'do one' simple as that. :)

I don't need to re read what I wrote. It's a statement of fact, not related to me, and yes indeed hypothetical.

Nothing to do with you being Italian, no 'slurs' whatsoever (unlike your well documented, persistent insults about the British and their ubiquitous 'character' which you find so disagreeable) so stop the violin playing and 'victim' act, its pathetic. Point being is that people in glass houses should not throw stones. :grin: Its because of the reasons I outlined above.

Anyway, carry on Alessandro (oh and stop lying). :rolleyes: Out of here, you're blinking bonkers mate. Toodle pip. :eek:

Cheers. :grin:

[Sternjaeger II]

*sigh*. You can add 'grass' and 'fibber' to that list too. I'm afraid it is you yourself that is the grade A head case, just look at the amount of time you have devoted to knocking the UK. Obvious issues. If you hate it here that much then 'do one' simple as that. :)

I don't need to re read what I wrote. It's a statement of fact, not related to me, and yes indeed hypothetical.

Nothing to do with you being Italian, no 'slurs' whatsoever (unlike your well documented, persistent insults about the British and their ubiquitous 'character' which you find so disagreeable) so stop the violin playing and 'victim' act, its pathetic. Point being is that people in glass houses should not throw stones. :grin: Its because of the reasons I outlined above.

Anyway, carry on Alessandro (oh and stop lying). :rolleyes: Out of here, you're blinking bonkers mate. Toodle pip. :eek:

Cheers. :grin:

Eh? I am not knocking the UK, I'm trying to make a point that differs from your opinion, trying to show how I validate it, and you turn it into an attack to Britain. This aggressive behaviour is completely uncalled for, and if you can't even back up the things that you say, defining them hypothetical yourself, you just show yourself to be yet another spineless keyboard hero.

You brought in the Italian thing in here, you are connecting my identity with someone else's, you're being offensive and calling me names, just because my opinion differs from yours.

I am afraid that the bonkers one here is you, not me. Oh, and I PMd you as requested, feel free to continue this there, since I believe it's off topic here? :confused:

[Sternjaeger II]

This seems to confirm what I've suspected for a while, i.e. you don't appear to have read Bungay's book.

Consequently your opinions of Bungay's book are not your own and are based on the opinions of others.

Regurgitation of hearsay is no different whatsoever to propaganda in this context and also demostrates a good deal of bias.

Given the above quote, I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read James Holland's book also, which you advocated as being 'the definitive book'. More hearsay?

Your 'historical references' so far in this thread seem to come from either Wikipedia or a bonus DVD. Surprising from one who considers himself a member of the historical acadaemia.

I'd be happy to stand corrected of course.

Sorry folks, this is a bit out of context from the way the thread has progressed.

I have indeed, in fact my Bungay's copy is signed as well, it was a present from a friend who works at a bookshop where Bungay made a presentation, otherwise I don't think I would have ever read it. It's enjoyably well written, but it lacks on some points (I have jumped on a couple of chapter I have to admit), and even if you might think that his conclusions are similar to mine, this doesn't make his book a better source for a reliable reference.

Holland's book I bought personally the first week it came out, and albeit being a much harder one to read, I find it more complete and complying to the academic standards of a reliable history books. His conclusions are his own, not mine or someone elses.

You can appreciate that the Wikipedia references that I posted are ALL sourced from, and the DVD I mentioned was just an example that you're taking out of context.

I also mentioned Winston Churchill and Harris, but that must have gone past..

don't remember seeing much posted by you in terms of sources.. oh yes, cos you shared your own opinions, like the rest of us.

This whole thread is getting an immature twist driven by some obtuse nationalistic pride, which has NOTHING to do with the original thread.

[Sternjaeger II]

Really?....so youre just here for the argument, I saw at least 2 posts where you promised no further contribution yet you are still here displaying massive double standards.....


No, I'm here to express my opinion, an opinion that is different and based on another approach, but which apparently doesn't deserve any respect cos it questions the concept of "winning the battle of britain"..
a bit fascist, but hey, as you say history repeats itself..

My contribution to this thread at this stage is only in response of who has been accusing me of being anti-British, which is completely uncalled for and has no factual reason.


Had to quote this bit again....it's just so immaculate in its hipocricy

why, as opposed to "I have my own ideas, they've been told me by my Government through his propaganda"?

Is it much of a shock to you guys that not everyone thinks the same way as you do?

[bongodriver]

Stearn....have you read 'fighter boys' by Patric Bishop?, I just got it and haven't read it yet, what is your oppinion on this book?

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm a victim of the same compulsory "buy a book and read it later" syndrome, got so many I have haven't read yet! :(

I have the book in paperback, but never got around to read it, why?

[bongodriver]

I'm a victim of the same compulsory "buy a book and read it later" syndrome, got so many I have haven't read yet! :(

I have the book in paperback, but never got around to read it, why?

No particular reason really, I don't have a great library, most of my books are reference material and not historical analysis, the few I do have I haven't read, I am not a great one for reading that type of stuff....I even have a signed copy of 'tumult in the clouds' that I never finished (Reason I have a signed copy is that James Goodson was a patient of my farther)

Despite our differences, you may still give me an isight to what it may be all about...

[ATAG_Dutch]

and even if you might think that his conclusions are similar to mine,

Far, far from it. Not even remotely close and precisely my point.

The references to Churchill, Montgomery, Harris et al were simple provocations to which i did respond in one or two sentences.

The historical references I quoted were from your own recommended source.

[Sternjaeger II]

No particular reason really, I don't have a great library, most of my books are reference material and not historical analysis, the few I do have I haven't read, I am not a great one for reading that type of stuff....I even have a signed copy of 'tumult in the clouds' that I never finished (Reason I have a signed copy is that James Goodson was a patient of my farther)

Despite our differences, you may still give me an isight to what it may be all about...

sorry mate, I haven't managed to read it :(

I can recommend you First Light by Geoffrey Wellum though, as an aviator yourself you might find his description of his first solo with a Tiggie the best written rendition of the experience :-)

Uh and since he was mentioned before, Stephilner's book Spitfire On My Tail is quite a read, if anything a different one, that shows what it was like on the other side.

If you find it hard to read extremely academic books though, I would still recommend to read Bungay's one, if anything it flows better than Holland's.

[Sternjaeger II]

Far, far from it. Not even remotely close and precisely my point.

The references to Churchill, Montgomery, Harris et al were simple provocations to which i did respond in one or two sentences.

The historical references I quoted were from your own recommended source.

the bits you quoted were Holland's opinions.

What you don't seem to get is that I'm making a distinction between the factual gathering of data vs the conclusions that an author reaches.

I can read, agree or dissent with someone's conclusions, but what really matters is that the data gathered to reach this conclusion are more complete and accurate. In this aspect I think Holland wins.

I'm debating the academic value of a book here, not the author's conclusion.

[Sternjaeger II]

No particular reason really, I don't have a great library, most of my books are reference material and not historical analysis, the few I do have I haven't read, I am not a great one for reading that type of stuff....I even have a signed copy of 'tumult in the clouds' that I never finished (Reason I have a signed copy is that James Goodson was a patient of my farther)

Despite our differences, you may still give me an isight to what it may be all about...

uh and another thing, I read pilot's bios more for the descriptions of events and emotions than for the conclusions that they might reach, because even if they are cool, pilots are still human beings, not the custodians of the ultimate truth, although some get damn close to it.

When reading a "history book" it's important to understand beforehand the context in which it was written, if it's a witting or unwitting testimony, if it was written during or after the war etc..

[ATAG_Dutch]

Stearn....have you read 'fighter boys' by Patric Bishop?, I just got it and haven't read it yet, what is your oppinion on this book?

Sorry Bongo, not directed at me, but I have.

Fighter Boys - Patrick Bishop - Published by Harper- Collins:

Page 404 para3;
''Fighter Command dealt Hitler's forces the first defeat they had suffered since the war began. The battle of attrition that the Luftwaffe was forced to fight had a profound effect on it's future efficiency. A Luftwaffe General, Werner Kreipe, later judged that the decision to try to destroy the RAF had marked a turning point in the history of the second world war. The German airforce was bled almost to death and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the War.''

It's a very very good book.

[bongodriver]

If you find it hard to read extremely academic books though,

At least try to make that sentence not sound derrogatory, I'm not sure being accused of being a stranger to inteligence is particularily flattering ;)

[bongodriver]

Sorry Bongo, not directed at me, but I have.

Fighter Boys - Patrick Bishop - Published by harper- Collins:

Page 404 para3;
''Fighter Command dealt Hitler's forces the first defeat they had suffered since the war began. The battle of attritionthat the Luftwaffe was forced to fight had a profound effect on it's future efficiency. A Luftwaffe General, Werner Kreipe, later judged that the decision to try to destroy the RAF had marked'a turning point in the history of the second world war. The German airforce was bled almost to death and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the War.''

It's a fantastic book.

No probs, thanks mate, I was curious to know if the little review on the back cover by a 'james holland' New statesman was the very same as previously mentioned?

[Sternjaeger II]

At least try to make that sentence not sound derrogatory, I'm not sure being accused of being a stranger to inteligence is particularily flattering ;)

lol sorry man, didn't mean it to sound derogatory! :)

I find it hard sometimes, there needs to be a serious element of interest for me to stick to academic books. It's like trying to read a phonebook for its plot lol

[ATAG_Dutch]

No probs, thanks mate, I was curious to know if the little review on the back cover by a 'james holland' New statesman was the very same as previously mentioned?

Sorry Bongo, I've had the hardback copy since it was first published in 2003.

I'd imagine it would be the same James Holland though.

Out of interest, what does he say, if you have it to hand?

Thanks.

[bongodriver]

Sorry Bongo, I've had the hardback copy since it was first published in 2003.

I'd imagine it would be the same James Holland though.

Out of interest, what does he say, if you have it to hand?

Thanks.

" No one reading this book can possibly doubt the heroism of those involved ... there can't be a finer history"

[ParaB]

Stearn....have you read 'fighter boys' by Patric Bishop?, I just got it and haven't read it yet, what is your oppinion on this book?
I'm not Stearn, but I've read Fighter Boys and consider it one of the best books about WW2 I've ever read. And my WW2 literature collection has become quite extensive over the last 20 years.

[bongodriver]

I'm not Stearn, but I've read Fighter Boys and consider it one of the best books about WW2 I've ever read. And my WW2 literature collection has become quite extensive over the last 20 years.

Thanks, I appreciate all inputs, it was a birthday gift from a friend who gave much the same description as you.

[ATAG_Dutch]

" No one reading this book can possibly doubt the heroism of those involved ... there can't be a finer history"

;)

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

you just show yourself to be yet another spineless keyboard hero.

@Stern. *sigh* You wouldn't let it lie would you. I tried my best.

:grin: Comedy. Gold. Mine irony cup o'er floweth and thanks for the laugh pal. :grin: Do have a nice day though and no hard feelings Rambo (don't shoot! :grin:).

Home telephone number: 0191 2894170 (ask for Mark 7pm onwards, but we both know you won't, eh gob shyte ). That's out there for everyone to see. Nothing and nobody 'frightens' me; there might be a reason for that (loved your 'menacing' PM btw...terrifying stuff lol) and because I am so 'spineless'. ;) I'll gladly meet you if you're ever in my neck of the woods and you can tell me all about it. In an atmosphere of peace, cordiality and good will, of course. ;)

You're so effin full of *bleep* its untrue, and no this invitation is not because I 'fancy' you (I'm not like that lol) so don't get too excited. :grin:

I'm serious. Do it soft lad or otherwise kindly STFU. Yes, I've reverted to 'British' type. I never said I was 'civilised' anyway lol and on that score you are probably right. ;)

Fecking Clown. :grin: Mods you can give me a holiday now if you want I'm not arsed, it had to be said and he started it with yet another insult anyway. Still won't grass him for his threatening PM though, had a good laugh, and nobody likes a grass do they Stern. :grin:

Ciao.

[Sternjaeger II]

you just show yourself to be yet another spineless keyboard hero.

@Stern. *sigh* You wouldn't let it lie would you. I tried my best.

:grin: Comedy. Gold. Mine irony cup o'er floweth and thanks for the laugh pal. :grin: Do have a nice day though and no hard feelings Rambo (don't shoot! :grin:).

Home telephone number: 0191 2894170 (ask for Mark 7pm onwards, but we both know you won't, eh gob shyte ). That's out there for everyone to see. Nothing and nobody 'frightens' me; there might be a reason for that (loved your 'menacing' PM btw...terrifying stuff lol) and because I am so 'spineless'. ;) I'll gladly meet you if you're ever in my neck of the woods and you can tell me all about it. In an atmosphere of peace, cordiality and good will, of course. ;)

You're so effin full of *bleep* its untrue, and no this invitation is not because I 'fancy' you (I'm not like that lol) so don't get too excited. :grin:

I'm serious. Do it soft lad or otherwise kindly STFU. Yes, I've reverted to 'British' type. I never said I was 'civilised' anyway lol and on that score you are probably right. ;)

Fecking Clown. :grin: Mods you can give me a holiday now if you want I'm not arsed, it had to be said and he started it with yet another insult anyway. Still won't grass him for his threatening PM though, had a good laugh, and nobody likes a grass do they Stern. :grin:

Ciao.

..erm, it really sounds like you need a holiday pal :confused:

[MD_Titus]

43 pages, any of them worth reading?

I see stern is doing his passive aggressive stuff again.

Re the initial statement - yes, if defeat equals failure to meet objectives. Bungay's "most dangerous enemy" is a great read, and a very good handling of the topic that strips away other british account's bias. As to it's academic value, well considering the number of flight sim history buffs who recommend it... Got to have some value. Only an idiot would dismiss it without reading it.

Wellum and Steinhilper's books are superb first hand accounts, and give a texture to one's understanding, but should not be referred to as an historical analysis.

[nearmiss]

Stern, Orville,etc

You guys want to have verbal fight. Not here!

Take your comments to PM, or better still use the ignore list.

Otherwise, you will be a part of history on this forums.

Mods have let you run, but it's time you took the flames elsewhere.

Your posts have been reported several times in this thread.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Rgr and fair enough. Ignore list it is......

[kendo65]

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

[MD_Titus]

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

good post.

it does seem that the BoB was seen at the time as a barring of the door, a halting of the steamroller that had conquered much of europe in such a short period of time. we were fearfully aware of how ill-equipped our army was after it's narrow escape, even going to the extent of replacing armoured vehicles with flatbed truck and concrete. if seelowe had achieved it's stated aims (however implausible this appears to us after the fact, relying on the destruction of fighter cover over the channel, further degradation of the royal navy, good weather etc etc) then britain would have either been invaded or sued for peace (which elements of the commons were driving for during the battle). this could also have come to pass during the battle of the atlantic, which in fact was a more grievous threat to the nation than seelowe ever hoped to be. no britain - no aircraft carrier off the coast of europe for later use in the war. considering how instrumental russia was in actually defeating germany it may not have affected the ultimate outcome, but having to guard two fronts and divide what was essentially a tactical force (luftwaffe) cannot have helped barbarossa or future endeavours.

[Al Schlageter]

Sternjaeger II, if you don't consider the BoB warrants a 'Battle' nomenclature, then what other 'Battles' would you say were not, or were, 'Battles'?

[zakkandrachoff]

EEUU said to Hitler, "hey, stop bombing England for now, his economy is now like we want it to be, and go to Russia, the communist are plague in everywhere"

nana

Luftwaffe don't have the correct plane: They must nedd:; The Focke Wulf 190 and the Bf-109F, and big numbers of FW200 Condors.
if germany had this in 1940, they maybe are at the level of an invation.
Bf109E-4 was not the correct plane. first of all, low autonomy and incorrect armament. That problem of the MMGG in the engine must be fixed before the campaign. but... the corruption affect all goberments.

And i Vote for the He100, best than the BF109E:
670kmh 1.100km autonomy and engine cannon.

[kendo65]

Either my last post was amazingly good or everyone has been banned??! Have the mods been having a clear-out?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Either my last post was amazingly good or everyone has been banned??! Have the mods been having a clear-out?

Your last post was amazingly good, but after the last few days it's possible some people needed a breather.;)

[Sternjaeger II]

Sternjaeger II, if you don't consider the BoB warrants a 'Battle' nomenclature, then what other 'Battles' would you say were not, or were, 'Battles'?

by definition a battle is a conflict that happens between two parts in a precise lapse of time. The end can be a victory of one side or a draw, but there needs to be an end.

In the way things evolved, the battle against Britain wasn't over until VE day, the plan of undermining morale and assessing damage to England was still carried out with V1s and V2s. The fact that air operations got less intense and eventually the force was moved somewhere else meant that there was a change of tactics, not a crippling blow to the Luftwaffe which stopped them from operating as an Air Force. The aerial clashes over the Channel were part of a bigger plot, not a battle per se.

I understand the need for a sense of "battle" and "united we stand", but there's no logic nor nobility in a modern war like WW2, that's why I think the whole concept of the Battle of Britain is a bit bogus, and the clashes over the channel resulted into a draw.

[bongodriver]

by definition a battle is a conflict that happens between two parts in a precise lapse of time. The end can be a victory of one side or a draw, but there needs to be an end.

In the way things evolved, the battle against Britain wasn't over until VE day, the plan of undermining morale and assessing damage to England was still carried out with V1s and V2s. The fact that air operations got less intense and eventually the force was moved somewhere else meant that there was a change of tactics, not a crippling blow to the Luftwaffe which stopped them from operating as an Air Force. The aerial clashes over the Channel were part of a bigger plot, not a battle per se.

I understand the need for a sense of "battle" and "united we stand", but there's no logic nor nobility in a modern war like WW2, that's why I think the whole concept of the Battle of Britain is a bit bogus, and the clashes over the channel resulted into a draw.


Hello again.......so because there was no 'battle' and there was 'no end' therefore no 'victory' and no 'defeat' how exactly could there even be a 'draw', one could consider the 'end' was the point German air operations ceased, no need for anhilation (thats an end of war scenario)

I think what we have achieved with this thread is merely pointing out theres a very fine line between definitions over this event, and it seems hardly worth the effort trying to prove the alternate history, it's still going to be one of the largest air 'battles' of the second world war which gives it enough significance, I know it's upsetting for many to consider the British came of victorious, but what can we do.

[Sternjaeger II]

Hello again.......so because there was no 'battle' and there was 'no end' therefore no 'victory' and no 'defeat' how exactly could there even be a 'draw', one could consider the 'end' was the point German air operations ceased, no need for anhilation (thats an end of war scenario)

I think what we have achieved with this thread is merely pointing out theres a very fine line between definitions over this event, and it seems hardly worth the effort trying to prove the alternate history, it's still going to be one of the largest air 'battles' of the second world war which gives it enough significance, I know it's upsetting for many to consider the British came of victorious, but what can we do.

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued :(

[Skoshi Tiger]

So if it wasn't a battle by your definition it was a campaign

definition: A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.

Which ended in a failure on the Axis side and a victory on the side of the British.

The objective of the Axis was to get the British to sue for peace or destroy their capability to resist an invasion (depending upon who you listen to) , an objective that they failed to accomplish.

The objective that the British had was to repel the Axis attacks and gain time to rebuild their offensive capabilities, which they succeeded in doing. Obviously a victory.

Of cource battle would be equally vaild if you used the definition "A protracted controversy or struggle" and it does roll off the tongue better than the "Britain campaign"

Cheers!

[bongodriver]

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued :(

Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.

for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.

What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....

[Sammi79]

I understand the need for a sense of "battle" and "united we stand", but there's no logic nor nobility in a modern war like WW2, that's why I think the whole concept of the Battle of Britain is a bit bogus, and the clashes over the channel resulted into a draw.

A megalomaniac fascist dictator attempts to conquer the entirety of Europe, the logical and noble response is to oppose him. The reason WWII is remembered so vividly through many shades of tinted glasses is that for the allies at least, it was and still is seen as 'a just war' distasteful as the phrase may be, it was also necessary. It is also the only conflict of modern times that can be seen this way, WWI certainly cannot, and the post WWII conflicts are all terribly muddied in terms of right and wrong.

The Battle of Britain ended on september 17th 1940 when the Nazi leadership realised the Luftwaffe had been completely unsuccessful in achieving their objectives and indefinitely postponed (cancelled) operation sea lion. At this point the Luftwaffe were at roughly 50% numbers of men and machines they had been at the start of the summer, whereas the RAF had increased in number by roughly 40%. The losses were comparable but were higher for the Luftwaffe as you'd expect for the attacking force, but considering their greater numbers and superior machines (at the start of the year) not to mention battle experienced pilots and crews is a significant failure. By denying air superiority by means of staying alive and attriting the Luftwaffe until their previously greater force was now a similar size, the RAF set in stone that no land invasion of Britain could ever be mounted, as the RN would send whatever tried to cross to the bottom of the channel.

The plans then changed to night bombing of civilian centers (which no air force in the world at that time could possibly completely prevent with the limits of technology) which is not a continuation of the previous battle IMO but a new battle, with different objectives (to try and turn British public opinion against its leaders) which were also never achieved, in fact the Blitz (see this battle had a name as well) doubly failed as it had the opposite effect to that which was intended.

[blackmme]

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued :(

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.:)

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

So if it wasn't a battle by your definition it was a campaign

definition: A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.

Which ended in a failure on the Axis side and a victory on the side of the British.

The objective of the Axis was to get the British to sue for peace or destroy their capability to resist an invasion (depending upon who you listen to) , an objective that they failed to accomplish.

The objective that the British had was to repel the Axis attacks and gain time to rebuild their offensive capabilities, which they succeeded in doing. Obviously a victory.

Of cource battle would be equally vaild if you used the definition "A protracted controversy or struggle" and it does roll off the tongue better than the "Britain campaign"

Cheers!

yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.

Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.

for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.

What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....

Trust me, sentiment is taken into account, but it can't determine historical facts :(

I believe in the importance of the celebrations for the Battle of Britain, if anything for the remembrance of "the few" and as a cause of aggregation and pride for a country, so I understand his moral and social value, but these aspects can't be of historical influence, it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.

[Sternjaeger II]

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.:)

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

[bongodriver]

yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.

By this logic surely that means there were no 'battles' at all during WWII

it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.

it seems to me the only ones to gain from any 'revisionism' are the losers......food for thought.

[scotchegg]

Disappointing though it is to have to advise people who like to cite their academic experience / credentials of this, please look up 'ad hominem', and then avoid it when discussing...erm...anything.

[blackmme]

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

Your having a wriggle aren't you Stern :) you really are!

LOL

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

[bongodriver]

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

[blackmme]

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

With the greatest of respect Stern (and I think all of our exchanges have been respectful).

I don't think its because we won't see the light its more the fact that since defining your position on the BoB you haven't been able to sustain any form of coherent argument that supports it (and people have noticed :grin:).

I'm sure there will be future discussions where are in absolute agreement.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

Stern....the only thing that prevents you being classed as a Nationalist in this argument is the fact you are Italian, but you clearly have some romantic vision of the Germans, which is fair enough, take the Nazi out of them and they were an incredible force and worthy of all the envy.

[planespotter]

I think this is good interesting article on BOB game hub:

Die Luftschlacht um England. Did Germany really lose the Battle of Britain?

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/aboutthebattle.htm

[Sternjaeger II]

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

as I said, there's nothing wrong with the public perception of the status quo, I just find it strident in a historical concept so broad as WW2, especially for an event with such blurred edges and different perceptions from the contending sides.

[Sternjaeger II]

I think this is good interesting article on BOB game hub:

Die Luftschlacht um England. Did Germany really lose the Battle of Britain?

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/aboutthebattle.htm


you see? this is what I mean. It's an interesting and somehow intriguing point, and we all start from the assumption that nobody here is trying to deprive Britain of its well deserved merit for its accomplishments in WW2.

[bongodriver]

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

[bongodriver]

you see? this is what I mean. It's an interesting and somehow intriguing point, and we all start from the assumption that nobody here is trying to deprive Britain of its well deserved merit for its accomplishments in WW2.

I think that article is interesting but to claim the Royal navy was the key?

if Germany had achieved total air dominance the Navy would have been just as vulnerable, wasn't that something the War highlited, the days of naval power were fading fast because if air power? RN vs LW and German navy wouldnt have stood a chance surely.

[Sternjaeger II]

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

man, I can only talk for myself here. First of all you're still looking at sides, I'm personally on neither side, I'm looking at it from bang in the middle. You, on the other hand, and for well understandable nationalistic standpoints, give the impression of still looking it from the British point of view, but there's more to keep into consideration than that.

[Sternjaeger II]

I think that article is interesting but to claim the Royal navy was the key?

if Germany had achieved total air dominance the Navy would have been just as vulnerable, wasn't that something the War highlited, the days of naval power were fading fast because if air power? RN vs LW and German navy wouldnt have stood a chance surely.

I'll read the article in full and tell you what I think of it.

[bongodriver]

Ignore me....I read the wrong thing anyway, I read the web article and not the pdf it linked to....then my internet died before I could edit my response.....I wish the Germans were in charge here sometimes, everything would bloody work then!!!!

[bongodriver]

Just read it....in conclusion it really is saying the 'battle' was insignificant because the Germans werent really interested...so it just didn't matter, and anyhow the Luftwaffe was crap anyway, and when they got bored of it all they really did just pack up the sausages and leave.....seems it really is all about Nationalistic viewpoints and neither side wil rest until the other changes its mind........Stern is right......it's a draw eh ;)

[DD_crash]

I think that article is interesting but to claim the Royal navy was the key?

if Germany had achieved total air dominance the Navy would have been just as vulnerable, wasn't that something the War highlited, the days of naval power were fading fast because if air power? RN vs LW and German navy wouldnt have stood a chance surely.
A bit O/T but how much of the invasion fleet would the RN have to sink before the invasion would be called off? I am sure that the RN would sacrifice a lot of ships to achieve that. Their role is to protect Britain and that would be their task.

[Al Schlageter]

dictionary

battle: a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces

[Sternjaeger II]

A bit O/T but how much of the invasion fleet would the RN have to sink before the invasion would be called off? I am sure that the RN would sacrifice a lot of ships to achieve that. Their role is to protect Britain and that would be their task.

Well, the role is to protect Britain while having the minimum amount of losses, cos once your might is no more, you failed.

Exposing all of your Navy in such a narrow area would have been quite a huge risk, besides, considering that the waters would have been an obstacle anyway, the only viable solution would have been to invade the territory with paratroopers and establish bridgeheads.
Considering that the first heavy transport glider (Me321 Gigant) was done at a record speed and available in early 1941, if they carried on with the battle for air dominance they might have as well ditched the plan of an invasion via sea for an airborne one: with a coordinated operation they could have delivered thousands of soldiers and even light tanks and medium tanks (Panzer IV) in a single day.

But again, this is speculation.

[robtek]

To add a bit O/T thoughts, i believe that the german LW would have been able to gain enough local air superiority to sink any fleet in reach of the 109's during the first part of the BoB.

[Sternjaeger II]

here's a working link to Lund's reference (the one that doesn't work in the original pdf)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/index.html

[blackmme]

Well, the role is to protect Britain while having the minimum amount of losses, cos once your might is no more, you failed.

Exposing all of your Navy in such a narrow area would have been quite a huge risk, besides, considering that the waters would have been an obstacle anyway, the only viable solution would have been to invade the territory with paratroopers and establish bridgeheads.
Considering that the first heavy transport glider (Me321 Gigant) was done at a record speed and available in early 1941, if they carried on with the battle for air dominance they might have as well ditched the plan of an invasion via sea for an airborne one: with a coordinated operation they could have delivered thousands of soldiers and even light tanks and medium tanks (Panzer IV) in a single day.

But again, this is speculation.

I have often wondered about Milch's June 40 'Plan / Gamble'.
Massive local air superiority, glider / parachute operation to capture say Hawkinge and then throw the kitchen sink at keeping resupply / reinforcement open.

I think given the state of the British Army at that point it might just have worked.

Regards Mike

[csThor]

Just a short reply WRT naval forces:

1.) The forces near the invasion zone - which were light forces, destroyers and a handful of light cruisers - would be among the priority targets for the Luftwaffe if the necessary air superiority had been established. And that is before the "invasion fleet" raises anchors.
Besides there is more than one way to take warships out of the equation. Damage them, damage or destroy the infrastructure they rely on (piers, cranes, ammo and fuel depots) and they won't be more than a heap of metal. Had the Luftwaffe won air superiority the big harbors of Southern England would have seen very heavy attacks (i.e. Portsmouth or Southampton).

2.) The Royal Navy was stretched thin across the globe due to the necessities of the Empire, the italian navy in the Mediterranean Sea and the need to escort convois across the Atlantic. The Home Fleet was based at Scapa Flow and a number of cruiser and destroyer flotillas along the Eastern Coast. Getting them to the area of operations does take time, a group of heavy ships coming from Scapa will take up to a day to reach the combat zone. Which means there will be no heavy cruisers or battleships opposing the initial landings.

Additionally the Channel was a narrow theater, rather easily controlled with light forces, recon planes, submarines and - the real trump card the Kriegsmarine had - mines. Large ships are best suited for large sea areas. They need space to maneuver ... which was just not there in the Channel.

3.) Battleships and the likes are political weapons. Regardless of their firepower, their protection or their speed there was always a political element in their use. Wilhelm II left the High Seas Fleet in their harbors since he feared losses more. The Japanese left Musashi and Yamato at home until it was too late for them to make a useful contribution. I think the british government would think hard and long about employing its valuable battleships and battlecruisers in these narrow waters, where the risk of losing them is very high while the potential gains are at least questionable. These ships represent a nation's prestige in naval affairs, losing them for nothing would be a serious blow.

I'm not saying a potential invasion would have worked for sure. I am saying we're talking about very muddy waters here and it's simply impossible to tell what exactly could have happened and how that could have effected other decisions.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Not posting this to prove any kind of point, but found an interesting link here;

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RN-I/UK-RN-I-4.html

Couldn't find a similar link to a simple tally of Kriegsmarine strength.

Anyone post one please?

Cheers.

'By the 31st of August all ships of the Home Fleet, commanded by Admiral Sir Charles Forbes, had taken up or were proceeding to their war stations. The organisation and disposition of the fleet was as follows:

At Scapa Flow in the Orkneys:
2nd Battle Squadron Nelson, Rodney, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies.
Battle Cruiser Squadron Hood and Repulse.
Aircraft Carrier Ark Royal.
18th Cruiser Squadron Aurora, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Belfast.
12th Cruiser Squadron Effingham, Emerald, Cardiff, Dunedin.
7th Cruiser Squadron Diomede, Dragon, Calypso, Caledon.
6th and 8th Destroyer Flotillas Seventeen destroyers.
1st Minesweeping Flotilla Seven fleet minesweepers.
At Rosyth:
Aircraft Carrier Furious
At Dundee:
2nd Submarine Flotilla Depot ship Forth and ten boats.
At Blyth:
6th Submarine Flotilla Depot ship Titania and six boats.


In addition to the foregoing ships and units under Admiral Forbes' command the following forces were stationed in home waters:-- In the Humber:
2nd Cruiser Squadron Southampton and Glasgow.
7th Destroyer Flotilla Nine destroyers.
At Portland:
Battleships Resolution and Revenge.
Aircraft Carriers Courageous and Hermes.
Cruisers Ceres, Caradoc, Cairo (A.A. cruiser.)
18th Destroyer Flotilla Nine destroyers.'

I make that about 90 ships/boats in total.

[Al Schlageter]

"The number and strength of our surface units is so small compared to the British fleet that they can only show how to die in honor - even when operating with full effort."
-- Großadmiral Erich Raeder, September 3, 1939

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Fleets-September-1939.htm

[Sternjaeger II]

yep, considering the losses sustained during the Norway campaign as well, the Kriegsmarine was in no state to face the Royal Navy, save for the u-boote, which could have still used with success in such a peculiar bit of sea, and being very close to their bases, they would have operated quick and effectively.

[ATAG_Dutch]

yep, considering the losses sustained during the Norway campaign as well, the Kriegsmarine was in no state to face the Royal Navy, save for the u-boote, which could have still used with success in such a peculiar bit of sea, and being very close to their bases, they would have operated quick and effectively.

Yeah, it was the u-boat strength I was mainly looking for.

I was also thinking how fantastic it would be if one day using some sort of online computer sim, maybe even CoD, the invasion could actually be attempted virtually, complete with Naval forces etc.:grin:

What a cracking fantasy!

[csThor]

The weakness of the Kriegsmarine is not really relevant in that equation. Every sane person would know that such an operation would have to substiture naval power with air power ... The Kriegsmarine had only three factors to contribute (besides providing the transport vessels): torpedos (from E-Boats and submarines), destroyers (plus a few cruisers) and most importantly mines.

EDIT: I think it's a gross misconception just to count the british capital ships and park them in the middle of the Channel. Such a concentration of force is unwieldy and would have serious trouble maneuvering. And maneuver they'd have to ... to evade the hail of bombs. Damage would most certainly accumulate over time and at some point they'd have to withdraw - even if they'd just run out of ammo (which would be a lot sooner for the important destroyers and light cruisers).

[DD_crash]

Well, the role is to protect Britain while having the minimum amount of losses, cos once your might is no more, you failed.

True enough but the Kreigsmarine were very concerned about the strength and ability of the RN(if I remember rightly). I would like to know what the RN planed to do in the event of an invasion fleet setting out and what losses they expected and were prepared to take. I think that the general opinion of the Navys at that time was it was hard to sink a ship using aircraft. Billy Mitchell proved otherwise but the USN wasnt impressed.

[csThor]

No surprise. Few Admirals would be happy to admit that their expensive toys were suddenly vulnerable to aircraft. ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

In terms of capital ships, the Kreigsmarine was already practically out of action at the time of the BoB. It wouldn't be until early 1941 that enough ships were online to consider any time of aggressive action against the British, and that was Operation Rhineland.

Thanks, do you know the number of operational u-boats at this time also?

The only figure I can find is during the Norway campaign @ 30.

[DD_crash]

I was also thinking how fantastic it would be if one day using some sort of online computer sim, maybe even CoD, the invasion could actually be attempted virtually, complete with Naval forces etc.:grin:

What a cracking fantasy!
I bet that the Luftwaffe wouldn't put the radar sites low on their priories this time :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

I bet that the Luftwaffe wouldn't put the radar sites low on their priories this time :)

And Erprobungsgruppe 210 would be a whole Luftflotte.;)

[Al Schlageter]

http://www.uboat.net/index.html

graph and other info on U-boat numbers

http://www.uboat.net/media/layout/images/graph_combat_strength.gif

[senseispcc]

World war two was a victory for the Marsians....:evil:

[kendo65]

man, I can only talk for myself here. First of all you're still looking at sides, I'm personally on neither side, I'm looking at it from bang in the middle. You, on the other hand, and for well understandable nationalistic standpoints, give the impression of still looking it from the British point of view, but there's more to keep into consideration than that.

You make some good points, but I get a little annoyed when you constantly seem to imply that everyone else is unable to rise above their partial standpoint while your viewpoint is unimpeachably neutral and objective.

It is probably impossible for anyone to attain complete objectivity - too often the conclusions reached are dependent on starting assumptions, etc, and it's very difficult for many people to rise above the cultural and societal baggage they have inherited.

But, I would respect your opinion more if you could accept that your position is just as prone to assumptions and sometimes self-serving beliefs as many other people on this forum. You come across as somewhat elitest, especially when you ascribe those who genuinely disagree with your personal views as having been duped by propaganda.

The way to get us to change our minds is to supply overwhelming evidence. You haven't been able to do that (so far!). Your views appear just as partial and agenda-driven as any other poster in this thread.

[Rattlehead]

I was also thinking how fantastic it would be if one day using some sort of online computer sim, maybe even CoD, the invasion could actually be attempted virtually, complete with Naval forces etc.:grin:

What a cracking fantasy!

Would be nice, but even then, the objectivity of the coders who created the sim would be called into question by the losing side.
Someone, somewhere, is always going to raise objections, no matter what. :)

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

In my considered and (in as far as is possible, notwithstanding the apparently unavoidable subconscious and insipid subliminal influence of 'rabid Patriotism' lol) entirely objective opinion, based on an assessment of the facts, the Kriegsmarine did not stand a snowballs chance in hell against the Royal Navy; echoing the sentiments of one Grossadmiral Donitz, with air superiorty or not.

Royal Navy:

5 capital ships
11 cruisers
53 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty

Kriegsmarine:

1 capital ship
1 cruiser
10 destroyers
20-30 U-boats *Ineffective and at extreme disadvantage in the shallows of the Channel. Many ships also with unrepaired extensive damage from the Norwegian campaign*

Not only vastly outnumbered, but outclassed too.

Add to the RN mix a countless legion of auxilary craft, , adapted trawlers and sloops, minesweepers and motor torpedo boats . The MTB 102 alone for example was capable of 48 knts fully laden, and could be equipped variously with machine guns, depth charges, and the Swiss Oerlikon 20mm AA cannon. Nasty little bumblebee with quite a sting, small and extremely maneouvrable,.....Have fun 'precision bombing' or strafing those. In a barge vs 102 battle, I really don't fancy the barges chances. :D

Interestingly, no mention has been made of the fact that the RN need not have fired a single shot in order to sink the rag tag German barge Armada (appallingly ill prepared and trained with no experience of amphibious assault). The mere proximity and wake of a destroyer, never mind a Capital Ship would be enough to capsize the craft. In fact, Mother Nature (with a strong channel current) could very easily do that too. Barges are designed for Rivers. I wouldn't like to be on that barge at night.

Dunkirk (and to an extent the Norwegian Campaign) shows demonstrable precedent that air superiority alone cannot be a guarantor of operational success. Despite the immense tonnage of bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk, against targets which were stationary for long periods of time, and at best extremely restricted in movement by the harbour.......a paltry 4 destroyers were sunk. This was a resounding Luftwaffe operational failure in terms of meeting an express military objective no matter which way you cut it; namely to prevent the evacuation of some 300,000 men, which they failed quite miserably to do. You can either hit a stationary or moving target or you can't.....an underwhelming performance to say the least, with substantial Lufwaffe casualties incurred too ( some 30 aircraft, with many more damaged). Ships are indeed vulnerable to aerial attack, but not entirely defenceless themselves.

Yes, it is true to say that unfavourable weather played a part, (particularly the 27th and 30th May) but if perfect conditions and visibility are a prerequisite for effective bombing then circa Sept 1940.....you are out of luck. No Meteorologist, but Blighty is not exactly renowned for its blue skies, and 50% of the time we are shrouded in quite dismal overcast. If the 3rd Reich were in possession of some occult voodoo type 'sun dance' it could have swung the balance, but....Nah. :D It does provide a creative spark for the miserablist majesty of great bands like The Smiths and Radiohead though, so it has its perks. :D

Much has been made of the 'mine screen' tactic and their 'interdictive' deployment strategy, with no mention of the fact that the Channel had already been heavily mined by the RN (it's called the 'English Channel' for a reason) and thus would require their laborious and time consuming removal; further shortening the very brief 'window of opportunity' that seelowe had.

The practice of 'Degaussing' ships hulls has received no consideration; the entire Dunkirk evac fleet including civilian ships underwent this process very swiftly, rendering them essentially impervious to magnetic mines. Not a single ship was lost to German mines. This could be done very swiftly, with a more thorough process resulting in a ship hulls demagnetisation for months at a time.

The Kriegsmarine, as Donitz's testimony itself agrees, were on a hiding to nothing....air superiority or not. Seelowe was a terribly ill conceived 'plan' (used in the loosest sense of the word), with more holes than a collander, and more flaws than a teenagers pimpled face. :D

Late in Blighty and I've had a few jars, but might come back to this one. I like a good debate, but for me personally (and I hope without prejudice lol ) this case is closed. The vast majority of historians agree that it would have resulted in catastrophic failure, and I entirely concur. You are of course welcome to draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion the end game is a logistical-supply nightmare for Germany (given the extremely unlikely hypothetical event of establishing an effective beach head) and the final result is comprehensive and emphatic defeat. Not to say there would not be RN casualties (there most certainly would), but the final outcome was quite inevitable.

Cheers.

[trashcanman]

An account of the 1974 Sandhurst wargame of Operation Sealion.

Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974.

The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. The scenario is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940. Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert.

The main problem the Germans face is that are a) the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy; b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides (for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until late September to assemble the necessary shipping.

22nd September - morning
The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton). In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield.

The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified.

Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into the Pas de Calais.

22nd - 23rd September
The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in France.

The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel. German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.

23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.
The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West.

The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%.

The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties.

23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.
The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West.

The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%.

The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties.

Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs
Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort,
with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs and 7 E-Boats.

The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The weather was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was referred up the chain of command.

23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn
The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it could only be done by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by.

The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures.

On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave, but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be reinforced at all.

Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th
The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone, but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only unload two at a time.

The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British arracks hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest were killed or captured.

The whole concept of any battle being a draw is laughable.
By its very nature a battle is, in military terms, a conflict of opposing objectives. Therefore it has inherent success and failure criteria.

Midway is an excellent parallel to the Battle of Britain.
Japan used its attempted invasion of the island as a way of bringing the USN to battle and destroying it and therefore acheiving a strategic victory in both political and military terms.

Japan failed in this objective and therefore lost the battle.

Germany attempted the same in 1940 and lost the battle.

If one side was defeated, by definition the other side won.

[blackmme]

Midway is an excellent parallel to the Battle of Britain.
Japan used its attempted invasion of the island as a way of bringing the USN to battle and destroying it and therefore acheiving a strategic victory in both political and military terms.

Japan failed in this objective and therefore lost the battle.

Germany attempted the same in 1940 and lost the battle.

If one side was defeated, by definition the other side won.

Thanks for picking up on Midway Trashcanman. I asked Stern for his view on that battle and he decided American victory. I then heard a twanging sound that I believe was his logic snapping :grin:

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Thanks for picking up on Midway Trashcanman. I asked Stern for his view on that battle and he decided American victory. I then heard a twanging sound that I believe was his logic snapping :grin:

Regards Mike

mmmh, I think it was more the sound of your point bouncing over my explanation :rolleyes: ;)

Midway was a turning point and a victory because of the changes and short term consequences that came right after the clash.

There were NO changes whatsoever to the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe, you just pushed them back as much as you could, and not fully anyway, since they dropped tons of bombs over Britain.

They didn't stop because your opposition crippled them, they stopped cos it was a half-hearted, badly conceived and worst executed plan, and suddenly Barbarossa was more important for obvious resources reasons (and it's not like they stopped bombing you straight away anyway). Either you fail to understand the German logic about it, or you're in denial.

[Sternjaeger II]

You make some good points, but I get a little annoyed when you constantly seem to imply that everyone else is unable to rise above their partial standpoint while your viewpoint is unimpeachably neutral and objective.

It is probably impossible for anyone to attain complete objectivity - too often the conclusions reached are dependent on starting assumptions, etc, and it's very difficult for many people to rise above the cultural and societal baggage they have inherited.

But, I would respect your opinion more if you could accept that your position is just as prone to assumptions and sometimes self-serving beliefs as many other people on this forum. You come across as somewhat elitest, especially when you ascribe those who genuinely disagree with your personal views as having been duped by propaganda.

The way to get us to change our minds is to supply overwhelming evidence. You haven't been able to do that (so far!). Your views appear just as partial and agenda-driven as any other poster in this thread.

First of all thank you for seeing that some of the points I make are good. Second thing, have you ever heard me mentioning the might and power of the Luftwaffe or RAF (or other similar barking) or a "we won" "we lost"?

I talk about the two enemies in third person, I don't have this "faction approach", which others do and betrays an innate (and understandable) bias, but of little or no help for the sake of a fair appraisal of historical events.

[blackmme]

mmmh, I think it was more the sound of your point bouncing over my explanation :rolleyes: ;)

Midway was a turning point and a victory because of the changes and short term consequences that came right after the clash.

There were NO changes whatsoever to the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe, you just pushed them back as much as you could, and not fully anyway, since they dropped tons of bombs over Britain.

They didn't stop because your opposition crippled them, they stopped cos it was a half-hearted, badly conceived and worst executed plan, and suddenly Barbarossa was more important for obvious resources reasons (and it's not like they stopped bombing you straight away anyway). Either you fail to understand the German logic about it, or you're in denial.

Denial :grin: Lets not bring Egypt and the North African theatre into this!

So there was no change whatsoever in the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe between july 1940 and October 1940! :rolleyes:
My gosh Stern, there really is no point discussing with you is there on this subject? Everything you accuse the people you disagree with of you are exhibiting to a greater degree.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

There were NO changes whatsoever to the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe

Appart from the complete change of tactics to the 'blitz' bombings, and the losses suffered in the BOB

They didn't stop because your opposition crippled them, they stopped cos it was a half-hearted, badly conceived and worst executed plan

But they did stop after 3 months of half hearted trying.

Either you fail to understand the German logic about it, or you're in denial.

does German logic override any other? sounds one sided to me, in denial of what exactly?

[Sternjaeger II]

Denial :grin: Lets not bring Egypt and the North African theatre into this!

So there was no change whatsoever in the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe between july 1940 and October 1940! :rolleyes:


what do you think, that when one starts a war with a certain number of aircraft they think you won't have any losses?! Battle losses were taken into account even by their incompetent leaders, they probably didn't think they would have lost as many, but and the production numbers show that the Luftwaffe soon replenished the losses with the production of new planes.

Besides the evolution of aircraft was so fast that Emils would have been obsolescent by 1941, it was a costly, disposable force.


My gosh Stern, there really is no point discussing with you is there on this subject? Everything you accuse the people you disagree with of you are exhibiting to a greater degree.

Regards Mike

uhmm if you say so.. it doesn't make it right..
I don't accuse nobody, who's "the people"? I'm making a point, either you agree or disagree..

Appart from the complete change of tactics to the 'blitz' bombings, and the losses suffered in the BOB


see my answer above: losses are always taken into account. The change of tactics doesn't mean they lost, they kept on dropping bombs or V1/2s over the UK.


But they did stop after 3 months of half hearted trying.

yes, it wasn't as fast and easy as they thought. They still kept on dropping bombs with a more efficient and less costly manner, and one harder to stop.


does German logic override any other? sounds one sided to me, in denial of what exactly?

no, but it's a different one. You keep on applying the same logic to different countries, it doesn't quite work like that, but then again, it's a typical empire mentality, nothing to be blamed for of course!

[bongodriver]

see my answer above: losses are always taken into account. The change of tactics doesn't mean they lost, they kept on dropping bombs or V1/2s over the UK.

yes, it wasn't as fast and easy as they thought. They still kept on dropping bombs with a more efficient and less costly manner, and one harder to stop.

Yeah...because when they tried a face to face fight they got a bloody nose, so they resorted to poking us with a long stick.

Oh losses are taken into account.....so they predicted the losses they'd suffer and were just fine with it....like an act of charity to make the Brits feel a little better about themselves?

no, but it's a different one. You keep on applying the same logic to different countries, it doesn't quite work like that, but then again, it's a typical empire mentality, nothing to be blamed for of course!

This just doesn't make sense....applying what logic to what countries?

Ah the empire mentality.......another little jab at the Brits....so the Germans never had designs on an 'empire' ?......come to think of it while the British were empire building I seem to recall they weren't alone in that race at all.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yeah...because when they tried a face to face fight they got a bloody nose, so they resorted to poking us with a long stick.

you see? That's what I mean, how can you call that an unbiased assessment? :confused: But using your terms: I think the fight gave a bloody nose to both of them..


Oh losses are taken into account.....so they predicted the losses they'd suffer and were just fine with it....like an act of charity to make the Brits feel a little better about themselves?

yes, every armed forces does it, it's called damage assessment. No charities involved...


This just doesn't make sense....applying what logic to what countries?

your empire logic to other countries.


Ah the empire mentality.......another little jab at the Brits....so the Germans never had designs on an 'empire' ?......come to think of it while the British were empire building I seem to recall they weren't alone in that race at all.

man, you're really touchy are you? Why is that supposed to be a little jab or derogatory?! :confused:
The Germans were the main European empire, but nowadays they don't think in those terms anymore. Many in the UK still do it, probably thinking that the status of "Kingdom" means they still are an empire. Again, there's nothing wrong with the empire mentality, it's just a bit anachronistic.

[Bewolf]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/britain-nazi-obsession-insecurity-history

....as if the author read this thread.

[bongodriver]

you see? That's what I mean, how can you call that an unbiased assessment? But using your terms: I think the fight gave a bloody nose to both of them..

The Brits got their nose bloodied in France, I just assumed that was the 'given', the BOB was where the Grmans got a taste and it didn't feel so good, they tried for 3 months with one tactic which failed and switched to another......that failed, no bias....that is what happened, any colurfull Nationalistic tones used in the description don't change those facts.

yes, every armed forces does it, it's called damage assessment. No charities involved...

Quite....and when the predictions are proving a bit 'off' it's time to change plans

your empire logic to other countries.

Still not making sense, please elaborate with a clear example of this.

man, you're really touchy are you? Why is that supposed to be a little jab or derogatory?!
The Germans were the main European empire, but nowadays they don't think in those terms anymore. Many in the UK still do it, probably thinking that the status of "Kingdom" means they still are an empire. Again, there's nothing wrong with the empire mentality, it's just a bit anachronistic.

Touchy?.....maybe, when you hear this kind of crap over and over it wears the patience somewhat, many in the UK is not everyone in the UK, The United Kingdom existed before the empire, the empire doesn't exist any more.

[Sternjaeger II]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/britain-nazi-obsession-insecurity-history

....as if the author read this thread.

Bewolf, you wanna become my spokesman? ;)

[Bewolf]

Bewolf, you wanna become my spokesman? ;)

depends on the pay, hehe.

[bongodriver]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/22/britain-nazi-obsession-insecurity-history

....as if the author read this thread.

it's the kind of drivel you expect from such a left wing newspaper, so the article fits into your 'generalisation' of the British, hi5's all around chaps.

[Sternjaeger II]

The Brits got their nose bloodied in France, I just assumed that was the 'given', the BOB was where the Grmans got a taste and it didn't feel so good, they tried for 3 months with one tactic which failed and switched to another......that failed, no bias....that is what happened, any colurfull Nationalistic tones used in the description don't change those facts.

You just don't get what I mean, I don't know how to explain it anymore, Bewolf, care to help me on this one please?


Quite....and when the predictions are proving a bit 'off' it's time to change plans

a "change of plans" doesn't mean "losing a battle".


Still not making sense, please elaborate with a clear example of this.

what is it that is not quite clear, the concept of empire mentality?


Touchy?.....maybe, when you hear this kind of crap over and over it wears the patience somewhat, many in the UK is not everyone in the UK, The United Kingdom existed before the empire, the empire doesn't exist any more.

yes, but it's this dwelling over and over on the glories of the past that is a bit silly, and, as pointed by Bewolf's article, shows the insecurity of this society.

Besides, don't you think for a minute that the continuous celebration of the "victory" on the Battle of Britain could be somehow perceived as passive-aggressive by the Germans of today? And I'm not talking about the remembering of the pilots or victims, I'm talking about all the Battle of Britain low quality jibber jabber, with that air of arrogance and presumption as if it was fought yesterday?

[Sternjaeger II]

it's the kind of drivel you expect from such a left wing newspaper, so the article fits into your 'generalisation' of the British, hi5's all around chaps.

oh so you're a right wing person, a "mild fascist" I hasten to add? Cos that's how it comes out following your logic..

[blackmme]

oh so you're a right wing person, a "mild fascist" I hasten to add? Cos that's how it comes out, at least historically!

I don't think not liking the Grauniad makes anyone a 'mild fascist'.
Of course liking the Daily Mail does put you somewhat to the right of Goebbels.

Regards Mike

[bongodriver]

I don't think not liking the Grauniad makes anyone a 'mild fascist'.
Of course liking the Daily Mail does put you somewhat to the right of Goebbels.

Regards Mike

Yes...what he said.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

The Brits got their nose bloodied in France, I just assumed that was the 'given', the BOB was where the Grmans got a taste and it didn't feel so good, they tried for 3 months with one tactic which failed and switched to another......that failed, no bias....that is what happened, any colurfull Nationalistic tones used in the description don't change those facts.
You just don't get what I mean, I don't know how to explain it anymore, Bewolf, care to help me on this one please?

Nope. There are basicly three people out there debating. The one who is in to learn, the one who is on a mission and the one who is in to defend. The latter two will go on ad infititum, aptly displayed by a debate going full circles all the time, no sense to get involved again but a few comments here and there. All comments and arguments on this particular point have been made a couple times already.

[bongodriver]

You just don't get what I mean

I guess so, and the same can be said for you it seems.

a "change of plans" doesn't mean "losing a battle".

If that change of plan is forced on you through failure of the initial objective it is.

what is it that is not quite clear, the concept of empire mentality?

Perhaps, for the most part I barely notice the existence of an empire, I am not aware of any significant change that would happen to life in the UK without the comonwealth countries headed by the UK monarchy, to us the are and will always be Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, even if the uk had the means to enforce it I seriously doubt it would ever bother maintaining an empire.


yes, but it's this dwelling over and over on the glories of the past that is a bit silly, and, as pointed by Bewolf's article, shows the insecurity of this society.
Besides, don't you think for a minute that the continuous celebration of the "victory" on the Battle of Britain could be somehow perceived as passive-aggressive by the Germans of today? And I'm not talking about the remembering of the pilots or victims, I'm talking about all the Battle of Britain low quality jibber jabber, with that air of arrogance and presumption as if it was fought yesterday?

nobody seems to begrudge the Americans any of this.......so why is it so offensive that the British want to honour the achievents of our armed forces? it's not a celebration of killing Germans, it is a reminder of what we stood against, if the Germans cant differentiate between a nazi and a German then what hope is there?
The arrogance you percieve is a myth, it suits your mentality.

[bongodriver]

Nope. There are basicly three people out there debating. The one who is in to learn, the one who is on a mission and the one who is in to defend. The latter two will go on ad infititum, aptly displayed by a debate going full circles all the time, no sense to get involved again but a few comments here and there. All comments and arguments on this particular point have been made a couple times already.

a perpetual argument cannot be blamed on one participant alone.

[Sternjaeger II]

I don't think not liking the Grauniad makes anyone a 'mild fascist'.
Of course liking the Daily Mail does put you somewhat to the right of Goebbels.

Regards Mike

it was a mere provocation, I think that opinions that we don't like reading (probably cos they're true) shouldn't be dismissed merely cos they are on a newspaper that leans towards a certain political side.

[Bewolf]

a perpetual argument cannot be blamed on one participant alone.

Absolutely right. "the one" here was not directed at any special person posting here, but a stand in for a freely exchangeable archtetype in such debates.

[blackmme]

Absolutely right. "the one" here was not directed at any special person posting here, but a stand in for a freely exchangeable archtetype in such debates.

Indeed...

Hang on....

A thought just germinated.....

HAVE THEY FIXED THE DAMN GAME YET!!!!!!! :grin:

Regards Mike