Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger
You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards!
|
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger
The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".
|
Actually the RAF command and control, and Dowding and Park's management of the battle were hugely significant.
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."