Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=3280)

Quote:
Originally Posted by biggles109
Hitler had no intention to invade Germany. the amphibious tanks were designed for river crossings in the east, not sea landings

"The Battle of Britain" was easy to win by Germany. Sometimes over confident makes massiveness, isn't it. There is nothing good about war ever in the history as my point of view.

The article only raises a moot point.

How the Germans viewed the battle is irrelevant in terms of who won. What is relevant, given that the intended outcome was for Germany to invade Britain, is that Britain was not invaded.

I'll concede that Hitler was only half-hearted about Operation Sealion but that doesn't alter the negative outcome for his forces in the field who were resoundingly defeated by the RAF in almost every major engagement of the battle.

The German strategic objective of the Battle of Britain was to force Britain out of the war, either by forcing her to sue for peace, or if this did not happen to create conditions in which an invasion could succeed. In this they failed.

A secondary effect of the battle was to significantly degrade the Luftwaffe capability which had a knock on effect in subsequent theatres.

I suggest everyone read the book The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay.

The best post war appraisal of the Battle of Britain, by far.

An interesting fact is that the Luftwaffe was sustaining irreplaceable/unacceptable losses during the period before August 1940, but failed to understand so because of the rampant over claiming by the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons at that time. Simply put, the German aircraft industry was not keeping up, while the British aircraft industry ramped up production the entire time.

It was never the "close run" thing that has become the myth of it over time. The Luftwaffe never had a chance in hell of winning.

England has always had power over the sea.
The England and 'enriched with its colonies and possessions.
England had power over the sea and the power to decide the commercial maritime routes.
Mussolini said that he wanted freedom 'on the seas and that Britain is not allowed to move freely on the seas.
Italy and Germany did not have the freedom 'to colonialism on the seas'cause attached note from the U.S. and England.
This power over the seas today in our time England still owns it.
A mysterious hidden power of colonial possession.
But the English colonies have never rebelled against colonialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xilon_x (Post 291460)

Italy and Germany did not have the freedom 'to colonialism on the seas'cause attached note from the U.S. and England.
This power over the seas today in our time England still owns it.
A mysterious hidden power of colonial possession.

Germany had quite a lot of colonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...erman_colonies

...despite the fact that its navy was always inferior to the one of GB.
Furthermore, also France owns a lot of colonies today, despite the fact, that its navy was obsolete to the one of even Germany already before WW1.
And GB's navy was already inferior to the one of the USA (which still owns colonies too, big example of the praised 'Monroe doctrin' BTW) by start of WW2.

Quote:

But the English colonies have never rebelled against colonialism.

LOL! Best statement so far from you!

I guess, this one guy might have had a different oppinion. :grin:

http://www.google.de/url?source=imgr...PiaMgP_eO6jC7Q

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 291413)

.. while the British aircraft industry ramped up production the entire time.

It was never the "close run" thing that has become the myth of it over time. The Luftwaffe never had a chance in hell of winning.

A bit of a misnomer... Dowding's main concern was pilots.. not planes.

Galland explained it clearly in some interviews..
- No focus
- no real co-ordinated plan
- bad fighter tactics
- 'home game' for the Brits
- etc..

He said that the LW was never correctly equiped to fight the UK (overseas).. so they lost from the start... Mein Kampf 'clearly' explains this.

Quote:

Roosevelt could not ignore the 50% of the population who were against involvement, but he did everything he could to assist Britain, short of declaring war. That included the "Lendlease" act, which allowed Britain to take ownership of war armaments without paying for them, the gift of 50 Destroyers, (crucial to the defence of the convoy routes) in exchange for bases in the Caribbean, etc. Without U.S. help, Britain would not have survived.

He did more than just lend moral and material support. American lives were lost defending his policies.

Quote:

Upon the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939, she joined the Neutrality Patrol, and guarded the Atlantic and Caribbean approaches to the American coast. In March 1941, Reuben James joined the convoy escort force established to promote the safe arrival of materiel to the United Kingdom. This escort force guarded convoys as far as Iceland, after which they became the responsibility of British escorts.

Based at Hvalfjordur, Iceland, she sailed from Naval Station Argentia, Newfoundland on 23 October, with four other destroyers to escort eastbound convoy HX-156. At about 05:25 on 31 October, while escorting that convoy, Reuben James was torpedoed by U-552 commanded by Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp near Iceland. Reuben James had positioned herself between an ammunition ship in the convoy and the known position of a "wolfpack", a group of submarines that preyed on Allied shipping. Reuben James was hit forward by a torpedo and her entire bow was blown off when a magazine exploded. The bow sank immediately. The aft section floated for five minutes before going down. Of the 159-man crew, only 44 survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reu...s_%28DD-245%29

His feelings towards Britain was not popular in the United States and for good reason. Many US citizens looked to the past wars the United States fought with Great Britain over the treatment of our ships and sailors.

Britain's own actions made life difficult for Roosevelt to lend support. It was not until the Japanese attack that the US public really even cared to join England in a fight against Germany.

British policy was to detain US ships and crew as well violate our neutrality. It is interesting to note how arrogant and dismissal the British Admiralty is of United States protest until they really start losing the war.

Quote:

* February 1, Thursday 1940

President Roosevelt writes First Lord of the Admiralty Winston S. Churchill, concerning the detention of U.S. merchantmen, and frankly informs him of adverse American reaction to the British policy. "The general feeling is," Roosevelt informs Churchill, "that the net benefit to your people and the French is hardly worth the definite annoyance caused to us.

http://asisbiz.com/il2/US-Navy-History-WWII-1940.html

Their are some people who feel that all of WW2 (not just the BoB) is largely overlooked by the German people (lol)...

p.s. I joke, I kid...because I love. ;)