Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65
This presumes that the battle was a simple 'numbers' game. For the Germans the BIG strategic-level point of the whole aerial battle was to establish air superiority over the south of England so that an invasion could take place.
This they demonstrably failed to do. I think it is fair to say then that they lost the battle - i.e. failed to achieve their strategic objective, and that the British won - i.e. achieved their strategic objective of preventing the Germans from gaining air superiority!
|
The point is that the German strategy went "headless chicken" at some point, and they dispersed their potential. If things carried on for an extra six months I doubt the results of the battle would have been the same. It would be idiotic to say that the RAF didn't play an important part in the battle, but I would say that the outcome of the battle was more due to the German mistakes than to the RAF struggle.
Quote:
|
Actually the RAF command and control, and Dowding and Park's management of the battle were hugely significant.
|
U really do overrate Dowding mate..
Quote:
At the level of small-scale tactics (section, flight, squadron) the Germans definitely had the advantage early on, but I think it's fair to say they were comprehensively beaten at the operational and strategic levels.
And to say that 'they just decided to put things "on hold" ' brings to mind that old joke about the General telling his troops that they were "not retreating - just advancing in a different direction."
|
Operation Sea Lion was actually classified as "on hold", If you come to think of it, apart for the Jersey Islands nor Germany or Britain lost or gained any significant territory, and the Germans were confident that once they made it to Moscow they could come back and give a massive blow to Britain.. fortunately their boss was a tit..