the raw numbers

[yarbles]

I'm trying to wade through countless links but I'm having trouble trying to find some raw numbers. Mainly, what where the losses on the Eastern Front in terms of Russian/German planes and pilot losses. I was talking to my brother and I was trying to give him simple numbers to wrap his mind around so that he could sort of understand the magnitude of the conflict. He's a little familar with the Western theater but the Eastern Front is a black box. Thanks.

yarbles

[nearmiss]

Get onto google and do some Eastern front WW2 search. You'll get your information that way.

There are thousands of WW2 sites

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

The VVS (Soviet) official history of the airwar admits losses of approx. 60,000 Soviet aircraft to the Germans and their allies. The Soviets claim approx. 80,000 Axis aircraft destroyed.

There is no official Luftwaffe history, and many records were lost, but from what remains, historians were able to determine that approx. 15,000 German aircraft were lost on the East front.

Information on Finnish and other nationality losses are more available, and were under two thousand.

[secretone]

Does anyone have any idea how many German planes were lost in the West - just to compare?

[yarbles]

Thanks Buzzsaw - I appreciate the info. I'll shoot it over to my bro. I'll be blown away.

[Furio]

I can’t dispute how historians determined that approximately 15.000 German aircraft were lost on Eastern Front. Counting only the major types, Luftwaffe fielded no less than 90.000 planes during the war.
The vast majority was obviously destroyed or damaged beyond repair in air combat or on the ground, or captured by advancing ground forces. A sizable part was certainly lost in non-combat related accidents, while really few, if any, planes managed to reach the end of their service life.
Guessing numbers is obviously difficult, but some estimates can reasonably be reached.
Counting as 20% of total the non combat-related losses, Luftwaffe lost at least 70.000 aircraft. The majority of those losses was on the Eastern Front. If I’m not grossly wrong, that number should be not lower than 40.000.

[rakinroll]

I can’t dispute how historians determined that approximately 15.000 German aircraft were lost on Eastern Front. Counting only the major types, Luftwaffe fielded no less than 90.000 planes during the war.
The vast majority was obviously destroyed or damaged beyond repair in air combat or on the ground, or captured by advancing ground forces. A sizable part was certainly lost in non-combat related accidents, while really few, if any, planes managed to reach the end of their service life.
Guessing numbers is obviously difficult, but some estimates can reasonably be reached.
Counting as 20% of total the non combat-related losses, Luftwaffe lost at least 70.000 aircraft. The majority of those losses was on the Eastern Front. If I’m not grossly wrong, that number should be not lower than 40.000.
Pfff...

[Furio]

Pfff...

Sure. Pfff is the correct number.

[JoeA]

I can’t dispute how historians determined that approximately 15.000 German aircraft were lost on Eastern Front. Counting only the major types, Luftwaffe fielded no less than 90.000 planes during the war.
The vast majority was obviously destroyed or damaged beyond repair in air combat or on the ground, or captured by advancing ground forces. A sizable part was certainly lost in non-combat related accidents, while really few, if any, planes managed to reach the end of their service life.
Guessing numbers is obviously difficult, but some estimates can reasonably be reached.
Counting as 20% of total the non combat-related losses, Luftwaffe lost at least 70.000 aircraft. The majority of those losses was on the Eastern Front. If I’m not grossly wrong, that number should be not lower than 40.000.

I am not sure that's correct what are your sources for the claim?

[Furio]

I’m not sure either. It’s only my opinion, but my reasoning is simple.
Main German bombers, He 111H, Do 217, Ju 87 and Ju 88, roughly 25.000 built.
Main German transport (Ju 52) roughly 5.000 built.
Main German fighters (Bf 109 e 110, Me 410, Fw 190) more than 60.000.
Total of these types built: 90.000.
Almost all of them were lost by war’s end, when Eastern Front reached Berlin, and Russians seized what remained of Luftwaffe.
I consider as combat-related losses aircraft destroyed or damaged beyond repair in air combat, by A.A. fire, or on the ground by strafing and bombing. I consider as combat-related losses also aircrafts captured by advancing ground forces.
This leaves out only aircraft lost in non-combat related accidents, or that reached end of service life. I guessed this number at 20% of total aircraft losses (18.000). This number seems reasonable to me, but obviously I can be wrong.
I guessed also that Luftwaffe suffered “more than half” of its losses on Eastern Front. I’ve read that the actual ratio was 1.7 times of Western Front losses, but even considering a lower percentage, say 60%, the end number is near 43.200.
And that’s it.

[Thunderbolt56]

There have been times I try to put the Eastern Front into perspective for people that are, say, less in-the-know. What i usually do is tell them a couple things that are fact and easily found.

1. 80% of all German ground casualties in WWII were on the Eastern Front.

2. The largest, bloodiest, most costly battle (in human life) in the history of mankind was the Battle for Stalingrad.

[Igo kyu]

The majority of those losses was on the Eastern Front.
I think that's quite possibly mistaken.

It is apparently a fact that most of the German high scoring aces made those scores in the east. The scores were overstated probably, but the RAF overscored too, and it's probably not disproportionate, allegedly. Again allegedly the Germans found the east to be a target rich environment, and most of those targets undertrained, and under performing.

Stalin was prone to throwing numbers at his enemies when he couldn't match them in quality, in the air as on the ground. I've read that many I16s were sent into battle with no sights except markings painted on the windscreen.

German losses in the west were higher per allied aircraft, because of superior western allied training and aircraft. Even so, the "rodeo"s and "circus"es of 1942 and 1943 were apparently not profitable for the RAF and USAAF in hindsight, though they seemed so at the time due to overclaiming.

There probably were figures, there seem to be figures for almost everything in the west, the nazis were obsessive about documentation. If, as I suspect, there are numbers for the western front, it may be necessary to find those, and subtract them from the total to get a figure for the east, which I think there is a probability will turn out to be less than half.

The war wasn't a game that had to be fair or people wouldn't play, if they "didn't play" they would probably die anyway, so they did the best they could, even if the odds were hugely against them, because they had no better option.

The "blinding sun" campaign for the USSR isn't much fun, but it is probably as accurate a rendering of the actual eastern front as is possible without making it not a playable game at all.

There have been times I try to put the Eastern Front into perspective for people that are, say, less in-the-know. What i usually do is tell them a couple things that are fact and easily found.

1. 80% of all German ground casualties in WWII were on the Eastern Front.

2. The largest, bloodiest, most costly battle (in human life) in the history of mankind was the Battle for Stalingrad.
I don't doubt any of that is true at all. The Germans had it much easier in the air.

[Furio]

I think that's quite possibly mistaken.

German losses in the west were higher per allied aircraft, because of superior western allied training and aircraft.

As it seems, Igo Kyu, we are comparing more feelings than actual number, but...
I wouldn’t say that Eastern front was so easy for Luftwaffe. According to German archives, cited by Yefim Gordon, Luftwaffe lost 3.827 aircraft during the first six month of war, the most favorable period for Germany. In the same period, VVS lost more than 20.000, but it was the least favorable period for Russia.
Possibly, you’re right about more losses in West than in East, but there are numbers that makes one think twice. Citing again Gordon, VVS lost one aircraft per 32 sorties in 1941, 1 per 72 in 1943 and 1 per 165 in 1945. Luftwaffe lost 1 per 25,5 in 1942, 1 per 22,5 in 1943 and 1 per 11 in the last months of war.

[csThor]

Losses per sortie are not exactly a viable reference size unless both air forces are not only equal but identical. The VVS often had the numerical superiority and that became more pronounced in 1942 (exceptions were local occurences and owed to combat losses, a concentration of Luftwaffe forces at the expense of other sectors and similar facts).

A total number is probably always going to end in "approximate losses". BC/RS 3 lists the following losses for the VVS and Luftwaffe for the timeframe July to November 1942 (page 224):

VVS

Lost in air combat: 7415
Lost to AAA: 1642
On the ground: 487
Total: 9544

Luftwaffe

Lost in air combat/to AAA: 1039
On the ground: 96
Total: 1135

Interesting is the relationship between losses in air combat (don't know if the numbers include missing aircraft as well) versus claims. In this timeframe the VVS claimed 4500 german aircraft (losses include losses to AAA, don't know exact number of losses in air combat; overclaiming of 4,33:1) and the Luftwaffe claimed 14153 victories in air combat (includes approximate number of claims for various german Jagdgeschwader so the number is probably not that accurate, though; overclaiming of 1,9:1).

[Igo kyu]

As it seems, Igo Kyu, we are comparing more feelings than actual number, but...
I don't have all of the numbers, no, but the scores of the aces tell of a lot of destroyed aircraft. There were 35 German pilots credited with 6,849 kills. If they were over claiming by a factor of three, thats still over 2,000. On the first day, June 22 (according to Mike Spick in Luftwafe Fighter Aces, as was the figure above) the soviets admit 1,200 aircraft lost, 800 on the ground.

I wouldn’t say that Eastern front was so easy for Luftwaffe. According to German archives, cited by Yefim Gordon, Luftwaffe lost 3.827 aircraft during the first six month of war, the most favorable period for Germany. In the same period, VVS lost more than 20.000, but it was the least favorable period for Russia.
Possibly, you’re right about more losses in West than in East, but there are numbers that makes one think twice. Citing again Gordon, VVS lost one aircraft per 32 sorties in 1941, 1 per 72 in 1943 and 1 per 165 in 1945. Luftwaffe lost 1 per 25,5 in 1942, 1 per 22,5 in 1943 and 1 per 11 in the last months of war.
I tend to view all authors as potentially biased, as I am sure I am myself. The question is "which sources did a particular author see themselves, and which did they quote from other authors who claim to have seen original sources?".

[Avimimus]

What you guys need to do is break the war into years.

In 1941 very large numbers of Soviet aircraft were lost while on the ground or due to desperate tactics attempting to protect ground troops.

By 1943 the situation has changed with air superiority beginning to shift in Soviet favour, but with a massive increase in anti-aircraft guns on both sides.

In 1945 Germany is producing a tremendous number of aircraft (eg. look at bf-109 production in 1939-43 vs. 1944-1945) and a very large number of these aircraft are being destroyed on the ground, being given to very poorly trained pilots or being slaughtered while attempting to intercept allied bomber fleets.

So, if you want to compare Soviet and Western Ally effectiveness, then it would be could to study casualty rate in 1943 when Germany the situation was more comparable on both fronts.

But tallying up the total number of aircraft produced on each side during the war (especially when some of the late war German figures may only exist on paper), isn't going to cut it.

[Furio]

I agree with you, Aviminus. Forget about my numbers. My main point is simple: at the end of the war, all Luftwaffe aircrafts must be counted as “losses”, minus only those lost in non-combat related accident. Soviet aircraft captured by the thousands in 1941 by advancing German troops are rightly counted as losses, and the reverse is true also. Focusing on air combat only is, in my opinion, quite misleading.

[Insuber]

2. The largest, bloodiest, most costly battle (in human life) in the history of mankind was the Battle for Stalingrad.

Nope, it was the battle for Moscow. Until recently the Russian official losses of this battle were grossly underestimated, both for simple ignorance and to preserve the reputation of some top brass as Zhukov. Hundreds of thousand men thrown in the furnace, sometimes without weapons.

"The Battle for Moscow was the biggest battle of World War II - indeed of all time. The combined losses amounted to 2.5 million men - 2 million on he Russian side. Even Stalingrad involved half as many troops and less than half as many losses." The Greatest Battle, the Fight for Moscow 1941-42, Andrew Nagorski, Aurum, 8.89 £.

Regards,
Insuber

[JoeA]

I agree with you, Aviminus. Forget about my numbers. My main point is simple: at the end of the war, all Luftwaffe aircrafts must be counted as “losses”, minus only those lost in non-combat related accident. Soviet aircraft captured by the thousands in 1941 by advancing German troops are rightly counted as losses, and the reverse is true also. Focusing on air combat only is, in my opinion, quite misleading.

No, I disagree completely. That can't be a measure of combat effectiveness and I'm sure you understand why. I really don't think you can discuss this question without numbers and by referring to "feelings."

[Furio]

No, I disagree completely. That can't be a measure of combat effectiveness and I'm sure you understand why.
Are you saying that captured on the ground aircraft shouldn’t be counted? Why not? Air, ground and sea forces fight the same war.
Even if we focus more on air combat, a thing is clear: if Luftwaffe were capable of winning the Battle of Britain, maintain air superiority over Russia, and defend oil fields by Allied bombing, then Germany would have won the war.
If we focus on fighters versus fighter combat, we forget that bombers were the real offensive weapons with a real impact on the battlefield. During war years, Luftwaffe bombers diminished constantly as fighters grew in number constantly, transforming an offensive arm in a purely defensive one.
War ended in April 1945, but Luftwaffe ceased to exist as an organized combat force probably in January, being thoroughly defeated. Almost all of its surviving aircraft were captured before Germany surrender.

[Igo kyu]

Are you saying that captured on the ground aircraft shouldn’t be counted? Why not? Air, ground and sea forces fight the same war.
Even if we focus more on air combat, a thing is clear: if Luftwaffe were capable of winning the Battle of Britain, maintain air superiority over Russia, and defend oil fields by Allied bombing, then Germany would have won the war.
If we focus on fighters versus fighter combat, we forget that bombers were the real offensive weapons with a real impact on the battlefield. During war years, Luftwaffe bombers diminished constantly as fighters grew in number constantly, transforming an offensive arm in a purely defensive one.
War ended in April 1945, but Luftwaffe ceased to exist as an organized combat force probably in January, being thoroughly defeated. Almost all of its surviving aircraft were captured before Germany surrender.
If we are talking about the combat capabilities of the aircraft and pilots, then I don't see how ground captures at their home base enters into that. If the pilot lands at the wrong airbase by mistake, then that's a pilot error, but landing at the right base isn't an error that the pilot made, though it may be an error of a higher authority.

The Luftwafe wasn't even close to winning the BoB in hindsight, though it probably wasn't possible to see that at the time.

I'm not sure that the Luftwafe having complete air superiority over Russia would necessarily have resulted in a German win. Russian tanks were very good, and it is hard to destroy tanks from the air. In France, it was morale that the Stukas shattered, which was crucial, but what pecentage of the physical destruction was achieved by the Luftwafe isn't clear and may well have been low.

With the USA in the war, there was no way for Germany to match the overall allied production potential, the USA could have matched them alone, the USSR could have matched them alone, Britain alone might have struggled a bit to free Europe but there was no way a refought BoB in 1941 was anything other than a British win, and the Fleet was hugely powerful.

[robtek]

.......
The Luftwafe wasn't even close to winning the BoB in hindsight, though it probably wasn't possible to see that at the time.
..........


Thats not what the majority of history books agree to.

The reason for the loss of the bob was the halfhearted way it was conducted by the Fuehrehauptquartier already planning Barbarossa and of course to change the target from fighters to cities.

Anything else i havent seen written.

[Furio]

If we are talking about the combat capabilities of the aircraft and pilots, then I don't see how ground captures at their home base enters into that.


This is how I see it: ground and air forces advance or retreat together.
Germans captured a lot of Russian aircraft, tanks, cannons, and infantrymen during fast advance in 1941, Russians did the same in 1945.
German army advanced rapidly while Luftwaffe held undisputed air superiority, struggled inconclusively while air superiority passed to and from VVS, then was unable to resist when air superiority ended securely in Russian hands.
This was particularly true on Eastern front, where both air forces fought in close cooperation with ground forces, mainly as flying artillery.

[JoeA]

Furio that is nonsense, not about how important air forces and bombers were for helping (not winning on their own) ground combat but how capturing planes on the ground can be in any way a measure of winning an air war.

Equipemnt loss plays a role but in your examples what worth is it for the Red Army (or the Western armies0 to capture empty LW planes? Planes that were already useless through lack of fuel and trained pilots. The same for the German Army in 1941, most Russian planes were destroyed on the ground, others could not get supplies because of interdiction of their supply. The most important though was lack of trained experienced pilots.

[Furio]

Furio that is nonsense

Maybe is nonsense for you, but is my opinion, and I think that is alleged enough.
Capture equipment is not what matter per se. It’s simply a measure that someone is losing a war and someone other is winning, and the same can be said for air combat kills.
I’ll try to simplify and to explain better my line of thought.
I am a fighter pilot. I fail to intercept enemy bombers than bomb my home base, destroying our aircraft on the ground. My responsibility.
I am a bomber pilot. I fail to destroy a group of enemy tanks that, free to advance, capture my home base. My responsibility.
I am a fighter pilot. I fail to stop enemy bombers that destroy my country’s fuel reserves, emptying our fighters’ tanks. My responsibility.
In real Eastern front warfare, things were more complex and more intertwined, but my simple examples seem to me not less true. Sturmoviki and Ju87 worked closely with infantry and tanks, being instrumental in stopping an attack or breaking through enemy lines.

[Igo kyu]

Thats not what the majority of history books agree to.

The reason for the loss of the bob was the halfhearted way it was conducted by the Fuehrehauptquartier already planning Barbarossa and of course to change the target from fighters to cities.

Anything else i havent seen written.
Well, yes, perhaps that's the way to look at it, something on the German side wasn't full steam ahead.

I found this today, while looking for something else:

In the English translation of "Panzer Leader" Guderian is translated as writing:

Meanwhile, the units that had remained in France were busy preparing for Operation Sea-lion. Even from the very beginning this operation was never taken seriously. In my opinion the lack of a sufficiently strong air force and of adequate shipping-not to mention the escape of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk-made it a completely hopeless undertaking. Those two weaknesses-air power and shipping-are surely the best possible proof that Germany had neither intended nor made any preparations for a war against the Western Powers. When in September the autumn storms set in, Operation Sea-lion, which was already dead, was finally buried

I may have been remembering the flavour of that when I said BoB wasn't really winable for the Germans, though I certainly didn't remember it in full.

[robtek]

Yep, thats part of the meaning of my post.
Thx for agreeing Igo_kyu.

[wannabetheace]

try to read my post if u don't mind reading long posts ^^.

[Igo kyu]

Yep, thats part of the meaning of my post.
Thx for agreeing Igo_kyu.
I do agree that the Germans weren't fully committed to the BoB.

I am not convinced that if they had been fully committed they could have won with the forces at their disposal. What they might have been able to do if they had made many more aircraft and ships AND the British hadn't increased their own production to match it is a "might have been" of a much vaguer type.

Notice that Guderian says:

the lack of a sufficiently strong air force and of adequate shipping ... made it a completely hopeless undertaking.

Which is to say that in his opinion, the forces they had, even if used to their full potential, were insufficient.

wannabetheace wrote:

try to read my post if u don't mind reading long posts ^^.
I did read it, it seemed very one sided, if you ignore half the evidence on the grounds that it's propaganda, and take all of the other sides propaganda as absolute truth, then you will end up with a very biased and inaccurate position.

[Bobb4]

Flyable planes for the Luftwafe at any given time did not number more than 2000 to 3000 at any given time...
How you get figure of 90 000 planes built I will never know...
Take a look at this link and realise that at any given time the Luftwafe only had about 3000 pilots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe_serviceable_aircraft_strengths_(1940-1945)
Not arguing the case as the link is not a source i would overly trust.
Just hearing fantastical figure of planes produces seems nonsense.
I could be wrong but, 90 000 planes?
That would have made the Luftwaffe 18 000 strong during the battle of britain?

[Furio]

.
How you get figure of 90 000 planes built I will never know...

Take a look at this link and realise that at any given time the Luftwafe only had about 3000 pilots


For what I’ve read, one third of those 90.000 were Bf109 alone. Do you have different numbers?

Planes and pilots available at any given time is an ambiguous number. In this given time, how much severe is attrition? Think about Soviet losses in early days of Barbarossa. Think of Luftwaffe losses on the single day of Bodenplatte operation.

[Bobb4]

"The Bf 109 was produced in greater quantities than any other fighter aircraft in history, with a total of 33,984 units produced up to April 1945"
Just spotted this so I stand corrected.

[Furio]

In the English translation of "Panzer Leader" Guderian is translated as writing:

Quote:
Meanwhile, the units that had remained in France were busy preparing for Operation Sea-lion. Even from the very beginning this operation was never taken seriously. In my opinion the lack of a sufficiently strong air force and of adequate shipping-not to mention the escape of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk-made it a completely hopeless undertaking. Those two weaknesses-air power and shipping-are surely the best possible proof that Germany had neither intended nor made any preparations for a war against the Western Powers. When in September the autumn storms set in, Operation Sea-lion, which was already dead, was finally buried.



In my opinion, we should deal with Nazis Generals words with the same suspicion we apply to Soviet top brass. After the war, surviving German commanders explained their defeats as a consequence of Hitler’s mistakes, of Goring incompetence, of Russian numerical superiority, of American industrial might and so on. It’s human and understandable, but sometimes misleading.

[csThor]

You're making it too easy for yourself, Furio. The collected war diary of OKW is out there, I have it, and it makes very clear that Sea Lion was nothing but a bluff, a threat to force Britain into caving in. The Wehrmacht as a whole didn't have the means of staging an invasion of the british isles at any time. It doesn't matter how well or how badly the Luftwaffe operated (it did not operate well in the BoB - it never bothered to coordinate its own efforts at all, it never called for a conference of all senior officers to lay down rules and prioritize targets) because the other parts of the Wehrmacht couldn't do what such an operation would have required of them. It was all a big bluster, because Hitler never wanted to see his forces "wasted" in an operation against the UK. He already spoke about a campaign against the USSR as early as June 1940 - before the BoB even had begun! This alone should be an indicator where Hitler's true interests were (and where they weren't).

[Furio]

Are you saying that Battle of Britain was fought for nothing, and that a Luftwaffe victory wouldn’t have changed anything on the war outcome?

[csThor]

I don't want to speculate what a defeat would have caused for the RAF, but I am absolutely convinced that Hitler would never have ordered Sea Lion to be started, because the Kriegsmarine had repeatedly and resolutely protested against any ideas of the Heer for a landing operation. The ships available would - perhaps, the KM leadership was sceptical even of that (!) - have been enough for landing a small unit (something around a division or so) in the Pas de Calais area, but the KM was absolutely convinced it wouldn't be able to supply even such small a force over an extended timeframe, let alone transport the tanks and heavy weapons across the channel. The Heer instead planned for a Channel crossing 250 kilometers wide, with two full Army Groups!

There are several indicators for the bluff character of the whole affair - namely the total lack of coordination between the Wehrmacht's branches and within the branches themselves, the total lack of communication between Hitler and the commanding officers of Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine plus the steady (and sometimes quite fierce) arguments between OKW, OKH and OKM about the operation as a whole. If you add that Hitler revealed his true focus (the USSR) even before the Luftwaffe had begun to bomb Britain in earnest the impression of being nothing but bluff and bluster increases even more.

[Furio]

If you add that Hitler revealed his true focus (the USSR) even before the Luftwaffe had begun to bomb Britain in earnest the impression of being nothing but bluff and bluster increases even more.

To me, this means that your answer is “yes”, the Battle of Britain was fought for nothing. I disagree.
With skies cleared of RAF fighters, all UK cities would have been at the mercy of German bombers, even in daylight. I don’t dare to say that Churchill would have surrendered, but certainly he would have been forced to negotiate a compromise. And yes, this would have changed the course of the war.
My opinion, of course.

[robtek]

There just wouldn´t have been enough planes and pilots to put pressure to England when Barbarossa started!
The raf fighter command would have been revived when the pressure was gone.

[Furio]

Respectfully, I disagree.
An eventual Luftwaffe victory couldn’t come after the end of 1940, six months before Barbarossa. At that point, United Kingdom would have been without any reasonable mean to continue fighting: no fighters for the RAF, no tanks and guns for the army, already lost in France.
A compromise would have been inevitable.
In my opinion.

[Igo kyu]

Respectfully, I disagree.
An eventual Luftwaffe victory couldn’t come after the end of 1940, six months before Barbarossa. At that point, United Kingdom would have been without any reasonable mean to continue fighting: no fighters for the RAF, no tanks and guns for the army, already lost in France.
A compromise would have been inevitable.
In my opinion.

You are willfully ignoring the existence of the British navy. It was the largest in the world at the time, bigger than Germany's by a much greater ratio than it was at the time of the Battle of Jutland. The Axis needed to utterly destroy Fighter Command, so that their bombers could interdict the British Navy from sinking whatever they sent across the channel. The Germans couldn't get across the Channel except by boat, and the British Navy would easily have sunk those, and any ships trying to defend them, except perhaps for the intervention of airpower.

The Bismark ran for the open sea, destroying the Hood on the way, but the Hood group was one of many searching for her, to have taken on the entire British Fleet would have been utterly suicidal. The Tirpitz lurked in fjords for the entire war, there was nothing better to do with her.

There was never any question of a surrender without an invasion. The Axis did bomb cities, as later did the allies, and in neither case was anything like a surrender forthcoming.

[Furio]

You are willfully ignoring the existence of the British navy.

There was never any question of a surrender without an invasion.

I’m willfully ignoring nothing.
Royal Navy couldn’t defend British cities from Luftwaffe bombing.

And I’m not talking of surrender without invasion.
My opinion, and actually it’s not only mine, is that losing the Battle of Britain alone would have forced United Kingdom to accept a compromise with Germany.
Hitler would have conceded it gladly and without heavy conditions, just to have a free hand against Russia.

[KG26_Alpha]

Battle of Britain

Air Battle England during Summer & Autumn of 1940

Battle for Britain

That's a different thing completely.

Winning the Battle of Britain doesnt mean surrender, you need ground troops to enforce capitulation.

Operation Sealion was never "serious" enough to be considered feasible even with Luftwaffe air superiority.

If you think Churchill would have said " Ok you have beaten us in the air, we wont fight you any more" you are mistaken.

Of course IMHO :)

[Furio]

Of course IMHO :)

You’re opinion is as good as mine.:) History can’t be changed.