Battle of Britain books. Recommendations?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Anvilfolk

I was under the impression that his book was interesting. When I read it, if he stated his facts correctly, his thesis that the BoB wasn't a close call seemed plausible, or at least worth consideration.

Like I said, I didn't like him as a writer, maybe even as a person, but as a historian I got a good impression of him. Is the book wrong? Erroneous statements, lies? I am honestly asking, since I've mainly read good things about the book, and honestly don't recall getting the "we won 'os we're better" feeling when I read it.

Thanks for any further info!

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by No1 Cheese

Lonely Warrior is a must!!!
Sternjaeger hope you dont mind me asking but whats your age and where are you from?

Cheese

I'm 31 and live in England.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Then neither you nor your so called historians or your close friend have read the book thoroughly enough, as it's precisely that sort of propagandist claptrap that Bungay sets out to disprove, on both sides.

Nor would any Englishman, to my knowledge, end a sentence with the word 'period'. It's called a 'full stop' here.

'Periods' are something else entirely.

I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

You really know how to draw attention to yourself don't you.

period.

I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So is Christer Bergström but he does put out good books.

Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

Some destroyers and light cruisers is not the RN Fleet. There was no need to bring in the big guns, the BBs. The LW certainly didn't have naval night fighting capability.

Operation Merkur was a success because of British mistakes and was very close to not being a successful operation.

[winny]

The problem I found with Bungay's book was that I was very aware of him whilst reading it, if you get what I mean.

It felt a bit like a vehicle for Bungay more than a book on the BoB..

I prefer James Holland's, it's the most balanced BoB book I've read.

I do find that when Bungay's on TV I don't particularlly like him. He likes himself a lot though...

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by winny

The problem I found with Bungay's book was that I was very aware of him whilst reading it, if you get what I mean.

It felt a bit like a vehicle for Bungay more than a book on the BoB..

I prefer James Holland's, it's the most balanced BoB book I've read.

I do find that when Bungay's on TV I don't particularlly like him. He likes himself a lot though...

I very much agree with that. The book is not badly written, although his conclusions are sometimes simply go against logic and the sources. In particular his most popular claim that the LW was loosing in the attrition war was based on his misunderstanding of an old force curve found ie. in Wood and Dempster about the LW frontline strenght in Western Europe, showing a steady decline towards the winter, esp. bombers. Bungay ingeniously concluded they were running out of aircraft - something quite different than how many aircraft they deployed in France - a notion very easy to check against the actual total LW strenght returns of bombers, for example via Murray's old Strategy for Defeat book, which show they had a steady around 1400 bombers during the whole battle, +/- 20, even increasing somewhat towards the end. Such lazyness in research and the hunger for sensation against careful research..

However what disturbes me the most is that he and the media has sort of made a gloria above his head about all this "fresh look" nonsense, when in effect his book has absolutely nothing new about it. He merely repeat the same stuff the British historian/researcher pioneers dug up and wrote in the 1950/1960s. Then he wrote his own conclusions, which are 95% the same as previous authors. Fresh look my ass.. the guy is not even a historian, never studied as one, never researched as one, he studied various nonsense than worked in the commercial field all his life. All he did was compile the previous works of others and add his own thoughts about it, some of which are good, and well thought out indeed, some of them just pure journalist nonsense, and then this guy gets shown on documentaries as some kind of 'leading expert' of the case. He wrote a readable best seller, based on the works of others.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

let me try and put things down clearly. When you work on a history book there are three important factors to take into account: sources and references, elaboration of these in order to make the read somewhat interesting/readable, chucking in some sort of conclusion that justifies why you wrote the book and what your conclusions are. Now the last bit it's something that makes the difference between a good or a bad writer.
Being a library rat, going to the national archives and digging under thousands of papers is something that you can learn, but when you put down personal opinions you ALWAYS need to bear in mind two words: respect and fairness.

His view of the BoB not being a close call has been criticised by historians and history professors, simply because it's too much a big assumption, and in several cases it was demonstrated (and RAF historians agree with this view) that the Battle of Britain was won by Great Britain mainly because of the strategic mistakes made by the Luftwaffe, not because of the RAF aerial superiority.

Think about it for a minute: redirecting the bombers to the airfields and factories would have seriously affected aerial superiority, and as demonstrated in the Operation Merkur, an airborne invasion could be put together with the help of aerial superiority.

Barges and boats were being put together to cross the channel, and yes, the Royal Navy could have joined the party, but again the Luftwaffe would have given it a very very hard time. Besides many argue that putting the Royal Navy fleet in such a confined space would have turned the whole situation into a fish in a barrel one, risking the fleet like that would have been crazy.

But other than that, it's the somehow questionable taste with which he put down several sentences that really leaves me perplexed, and although being worth reading (if anything to know what you're talking about), I still consider it a biased one. I haven't touched it since I read it some time ago, I will give another quick glance at it to show what I'm talking about.



I'm 31 and live in England.



I never said I am an Englishman. Besides, what's your point exactly?



I don't understand why one isn't entitled to a personal opinion, or at least one that is different than the others, without being tagged as one that wants to draw attention. I do always motivate my statements, and I know I'm blunt, but hey..



Hey, Gary Glitter must have made some groovy tunes, but I wouldn't listen to his music

Kurfurst, I will have to name you my official spokesperson, you nailed it

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Some destroyers and light cruisers is not the RN Fleet. There was no need to bring in the big guns, the BBs. The LW certainly didn't have naval night fighting capability.

it is all relative, you have to bear in mind that losing and replacing a battleship is not as replacing a tank. The risk of losing so much tonnage of battleship to sink landing crafts or motorboats would have been high.

The biggest disadvantage with the use of the Navy is that you're putting a lot at stake, and the Luftwaffe would have surely quickly found a way to do night operations. Plus let's not forget that the Kriegsmarine could have poured in the soup some of their U-Boote to make things more thrilling at night.. it could have gone awfully different.

Operation Merkur was a success because of British mistakes and was very close to not being a successful operation.

Exactly, just like the Battle of Britain, but it was the Germans who made the mistakes this time.

[Al Schlageter]

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393

which show they had a steady around 1400 bombers during the whole battle, +/- 20, even increasing somewhat towards the end

That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393



That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

Erm, Hitler put a stop to it all in September, concentrating on the preparation of the Operation Barbarossa, a logistic strain way much bigger than the Battle of Britain. Operation Seeloewe wasn't lost according to the Germans, was just put on hold.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

If the LW was not running out of a/c then why was it that those units participating in the BoB could not be kept at establishment strength? In fact, they had a decreasing number of a/c available.

April 1940,
5,178 aircraft: 671 reconnaissance, 1,620 fighters, 1,726 bombers, 419 dive bombers, 46 ground attack, 230 coastal, and 466 transport.

October 1940 - 1,420
November 1940 - 1,423
December 1940 - 1,393

That should be decreasing somewhat towards the end and some 300 less than in April 1940.

numbers from Strategy for Defeat.

"Missed" something in Strategy for Defeat between April and October, perhaps? Battle of France, maybe?

Strenght 4.5.1940: 1758 bombers
Strenght 29.6.1940: 1380 bombers

So the whole story, bomber strenght in 1940:

April 1940 - 1,726 bombers
Strenght 4.5.1940: 1758 bombers
29.6.1940: 1380 bombers
29.9.1940 - 1,420
2.11.1940 - 1,423
30.11.1940 - 1,393

Source: Strategy for Defeat, Table IX, Table X, Table XI.

In short the Battle of France, though short but very intesive was what that decreased German bomber numbers, the Battle of Britain did not decreased them at all in comparison, whatever Bungay wants to tell.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

it is all relative, you have to bear in mind that losing and replacing a battleship is not as replacing a tank. The risk of losing so much tonnage of battleship to sink landing crafts or motorboats would have been high.

The biggest disadvantage with the use of the Navy is that you're putting a lot at stake, and the Luftwaffe would have surely quickly found a way to do night operations. Plus let's not forget that the Kriegsmarine could have poured in the soup some of their U-Boote to make things more thrilling at night.. it could have gone awfully different.



Exactly, just like the Battle of Britain, but it was the Germans who made the mistakes this time.

Delusional. The BBs were not required to scupper the German invasion fleet. The LW were that quick learners and implementers to overpower the destroyers and light cruisers in a few days?