WW1 Paved the Way for the Battle of Britain.

[Blakduk]

Kurfurst- the Germans knew about the British radar, but it was so far inferior to the German's that they dismissed it. They failed to realise how the radar information was used as part of an integrated intelligence gathering network to give the RAF dispatchers an almost real-time picture of what was happening.
The British mistakenly overestimated the LW capabilities and geared production to match it- they believed the German propoganda!

[Blakduk]

Back on topic- the fact that the Germans invested a lot of energy into developing the Knickebein radio guidance system may have been stimulated by their difficulties finding targets in WW1. I can't find a direct reference that suggests that but it seems reasonable.

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

From: The Luftwaffe in the Polish Campaign in 1939, by General der Flieger Wilhelm Speidel.

Please excuse my my derision but I'd be about as apt to believe Herr Spiedels' assessment of the facts as I would the 1940 Telegraphs' claims for RAF aerial victories.

If you're going to cite a source then at least find one who doesn't have a vested interest in the issue and doesn't stem from one of the most notoriously censored and propagandist regimes to have ever existed.

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe was laughable, just pointing out that they didn't enjoy the superiority which they are often misconceived as having. They were fortunate in being spared a prolonged campaign by some very poor French leadership and some very excellent Wehrmacht soldiering. The Luftwaffe fared quite indifferently considering their advantages and the facts reflect this if you care to examine them.

That said I'm out of this topic, check out the book I posted if you would like to read about some exceptional German airmanship.

[609_Huetz]

I'd be very careful with the country bashing or country praising.

The unpleasant truth is, with the experiences gained in Spain, Poland, Norway and France, the Luftwaffe was as prepared as they could possibly be, despite the losses in previous campaigns. In addition, they had the abolute advantage in numbers and what's much more important the initiative.

What spoiled it for Hitler, Goering, etc. were three factors:

a.) The abysmal intelligence service of the OKL. Their CO Oberst Beppo Schmidt reported on 19.July 1940 that the 110 and the 109 were both much superior to anything the RAF could and would field during the upcoming campaign. In addition, his report doesn't underestimate the effect of radar, it didn't even mention it!

b.) British Air Defense and Early Warning Systems. While the Few had to face desperate odds as far as numbers go, just imagine what would have happened if they had to fill slots on standing patrols 24/7 during the BoB. The sophisticated combined system of OC and Radar was indeed a dealbreaker for Goerings praised (and overrated) Luftwaffe.

c.) Strategical/Tactical Errors. Intially, the Germans did pick their targets well in accordance of their goals for the campaign (radar, airfields, etc.), however they did not learn from their mistakes during the inital stages and grossly underestimated the true strength of the RAF. During the early days of September 1940, Goering and Kesselring both overconfidently claimed that the RAF is on it's knees and that it's time to deal the final blow, this time to the people of Britian. While losses remained high on both sides, that was the final and capital error in Germany's strategy. One can only imagine what could have happened if it (thank god) wasn't for Hitler's and Goering's stupidity. Here's personell loss percentages for both sides during the BoB (Fighter Command and Jagdwaffe):

RAF: July 10%
August 26%
September 28%

LW: July 11%
August 15%
September 23%

An interesting aspect worth mentioning is also how little was learned from the experiences in the BoB during the later stages of the war within the RAF and the USAAF. Both thought long range fighter escort unneccesary and attributed German losses to poor discipline, inadequate equipment and low combat altitude. Two attacks on Schweinfurt in '43 had to proove them wrong.

If you want to do some good reading on the subject, I'd recommend Williamson Murray's "War in the Air 1914-45" for starters, that goes a long way further than just comparing numbers, but also elaborates on the doctrines of the mid-war years that led to what was happening in those fateful months of 1940.

Let's also not forget that this should be about history, not about which country is better or worse than the other.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Anyway.... back on topic


Here's a picture of my WW1 Royal Flying Corps pilot's helmet and goggles. Also shown is my RFC Mark V Omega cockpit watch, the pilot's Log Book I mentioned earlier and a .303 bullet casing found at Stow Maries airfield.



The WW1 German raids exposed the British vulnerability to air attack. Things were changed by 1940.

But did the Germans learn anything from their WW1 experiences against the British defences?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro

[baronWastelan]

Considering the technology and the objectives were vastly different from 1st war to the 2nd, the Germans would have been well served forgetting the WWI experiences. Unfortunately for the LW, WWI experiences were 99% of Goering's knowledge.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

Considering the technology and the objectives were vastly different from 1st war to the 2nd, the Germans would have been well served forgetting the WWI experiences. Unfortunately for the LW, WWI experiences were 99% of Goering's knowledge.

Yes that's quite correct.

The decimation of the Luftwaffe in 1940 had nothing to do with the British having the most comprehensive air defence system ever conceived.

Or that Britain had a more efficient training and manufacturing output.

Or that the British believed in giving the pilots a rest as opposed to making them fly until they died.

It was all the fat git's fault.

By the way, there was nothing unfortunate about it, unless you believe the world would be better off under nazi rule.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Good God, everything you just said is so wrong on so many counts I can't begin.

No offence!

Just realised that someone's being reeeeally sarcy. Result. You got me!

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Anyway.... back on topic


Here's a picture of my WW1 Royal Flying Corps pilot's helmet and goggles. Also shown is my RFC Mark V Omega cockpit watch, the pilot's Log Book I mentioned earlier and a .303 bullet casing found at Stow Maries airfield.



The WW1 German raids exposed the British vulnerability to air attack. Things were changed by 1940.

But did the Germans learn anything from their WW1 experiences against the British defences?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro

I think most of the worlds airforces learned the wrong lessons, from both perspectives on both sides. Nearly all had some form of "the bomber will always get through" doctrine in operation during the interwar years and we know how well that worked out for everyone. For the most part the tactics that were used during WWII were more or less stumbled upon through a mixture of expediency and necessity, and the farsightedness of a few individuals who were in the right place at the right time.

I think that pretty much all of the players were keenly aware of their (and their potential enemies) vulnerabilities to airpower. They just, for the most part didn't see how it would work out.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 609_Huetz

a.) The abysmal intelligence service of the OKL. Their CO Oberst Beppo Schmidt reported on 19.July 1940 that the 110 and the 109 were both much superior to anything the RAF could and would field during the upcoming campaign. In addition, his report doesn't underestimate the effect of radar, it didn't even mention it!

c.) Strategical/Tactical Errors. Intially, the Germans did pick their targets well in accordance of their goals for the campaign (radar, airfields, etc.)

The two statements seem to be at odds with each other. On hand - a logical fallacy often repeated in British BoB literature - it claims the Germans didn't even know about radar, so poor was their intelligence - another favourite British theme - yet they somehow kept bombing them still.

Now either Göring should have played lottery instead of beim RM of the LW, for being so lucky picking targets he supposedly did not even know of, OR the Beppo Schmidt report was hardly the only German intelligence material, nor the only considered in mission planning, and British historians (who often state a ridiculus amount of wishful commentary regarding the 'truth' vs this report) simply - probably also out of complete ignorance of German intel during WW2 - simply set up a strawman arguement to illustrate how ingenious the British, and in contrast how stupid the Germans were.

IMHO Beppo's report was mostly correct, he made one cardinal serious mistake, when he underestimated current fighter production - though his numbers would be quite correct a few months before, as British production was just about ramped up in mid-1940 from its modest levels, also inspired by the state of the Army after Dunkerque.

OTOH the British also seem to have very faint idea what was happening on the other side of the channel, they had no clear idea how many planes the Germans had, how many were they producing, and where they were located in France, nor did they had any idea on German radar (and for about a year or two, knew next to nothing about it) or German radio navigation and blind bombing systems. So on what ground do they criticize German intel in 1940, I do not know.