BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[mungee]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Does it really come as a surprise to you guys? The Spitfire winning the Battle of Britain is propaganda chowder, professional historians know that the Me109 was an overall superior fighter. The Battle of Britain was lost only because of the white dressed fat ba$tard (no, not Elvis..).

I've read many accounts/books about the Battle of Britain and I've come to the conclusion that the RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain!!
What the RAF did do however, was prevent the Germans from winning!!
Preventing the Germans from winning was good enough to thwart Hitler's plan to invade Great Britain - so I suppose one could say that it was a "victory of sorts" for the RAF!
Hitler realised that he needed to URGENTLY switch his attention to Russia, before it re-armed etc to the extent that it would be too powerful to take on - which in fact is what it turned out to be ... no doubt aided by the necessity for the Germans to retain a lot of manpower, aircraft etc in the West.
I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe was defeated when they "packed their bags" and moved east!

I live in South Africa and I really hope to see some of these BBC BoB programmes - hopefully they'll be screened on BBC Knowledge or come out on DVD.

Originally Posted by mungee

I've read many accounts/books about the Battle of Britain and I've come to the conclusion that the RAF didn't win the Battle of Britain!!
What the RAF did do however, was prevent the Germans from winning!!
Preventing the Germans from winning was good enough to thwart Hitler's plan to invade Great Britain - so I suppose one could say that it was a "victory of sorts" for the RAF!
Hitler realised that he needed to URGENTLY switch his attention to Russia, before it re-armed etc to the extent that it would be too powerful to take on - which in fact is what it turned out to be ... no doubt aided by the necessity for the Germans to retain a lot of manpower, aircraft etc in the West.
I'm not so sure that the Luftwaffe was defeated when they "packed their bags" and moved east!

I live in South Africa and I really hope to see some of these BBC BoB programmes - hopefully they'll be screened on BBC Knowledge or come out on DVD.

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! The Luftwaffe was far from being in the same dire conditions as the Royal Air Force. If Goering would have taken his stick out of his ar$e and listened to his commanders he would have got the aerial dominance in a matter of a few months. The real issue was that the tactics were changed halfway and it was one of the poorest decisions in the history of warfare.

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

[Splitter]

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! The Luftwaffe was far from being in the same dire conditions as the Royal Air Force. If Goering would have taken his stick out of his ar$e and listened to his commanders he would have got the aerial dominance in a matter of a few months. The real issue was that the tactics were changed halfway and it was one of the poorest decisions in the history of warfare.

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

I very much agree with the first part of that. If Goering would have made the elimination of the RAF and RADAR the only priorities, things would have at least been much more difficult for the Brits.

Clearly, the Nazis would have had to pay a dear price for air supremacy but it would have been worth it from a strategic point of view, invasion or not.

I do not agree that the Nazi planes were clearly better or that German pilots were clearly better. The front line fighters on both sides were doing their jobs rather well, the Germans were just at a huge disadvantage in that they were near the limit of their range. Plus, the Brits were fighting at home...when they lost a plane they stood a decent chance of getting the pilot back. When the Germans lost a plane, they usually lost a pilot too. But the Germans did have the numbers advantage.

Another disadvantage the Nazis put themselves into was the inferiority of their bombers. Stukas were severely outclassed by the BoB and British planes made mincemeat out of them and other bombers. They never really developed a strategic bomber. If the Nazis had developed better bombers prior to the BoB, again the Brits would have had a much more difficult time of things.

I think arrogance played a huge role in the Nazi "defeat" in the BoB. I think it again came into play with the decision to invade Russia (never a good idea for dictators lol).

BTW, in that post it may seem that I used the terms "Nazi" and "German" almost interchangeably. I try to keep a clear distinction in my head between the Nazi leadership and the German soldiers and civilians. I understand they were not the same and hope everyone else does too. I try to use the proper term when needed, but sometimes the differences are probably not clear. Hope that makes sense.

Splitter

Originally Posted by Splitter

I very much agree with the first part of that. If Goering would have made the elimination of the RAF and RADAR the only priorities, things would have at least been much more difficult for the Brits.

Clearly, the Nazis would have had to pay a dear price for air supremacy but it would have been worth it from a strategic point of view, invasion or not.

I do not agree that the Nazi planes were clearly better or that German pilots were clearly better. The front line fighters on both sides were doing their jobs rather well, the Germans were just at a huge disadvantage in that they were near the limit of their range. Plus, the Brits were fighting at home...when they lost a plane they stood a decent chance of getting the pilot back. When the Germans lost a plane, they usually lost a pilot too. But the Germans did have the numbers advantage.

Splitter, the Me109 was an overall superior machine to the Spitfire, let alone the Hurricane, and this is a fact under a mere mechanical point of view. The DB601 was an advanced engine developed with an aeronautical mindset, and its versatility made it as legendary as the Merlin. The armament choice and displacement was superior as well: don't forget that in 1940 the RAF still used the "Dowding spread", while the Germans achieved valuable experience from the Spanish Civil War in terms of weapons and tactics; same goes for the fighting formations, which demonstrated the learning curve that the Germans had achieved during the pre-ww2 years. The Germans NEVER complained about shortage of planes and/or pilots in 1940, and the veterans were a formidable source of experience and teaching for the new guys.
The real disadvantage was the poor range of the fighters, but that was being dealt with thanks to the installation of external fuel tanks.

Another disadvantage the Nazis put themselves into was the inferiority of their bombers. Stukas were severely outclassed by the BoB and British planes made mincemeat out of them and other bombers. They never really developed a strategic bomber. If the Nazis had developed better bombers prior to the BoB, again the Brits would have had a much more difficult time of things.

this is misconception of propaganda. The Ju87 was indeed slow and cumbersome (at least in its early variants), but it provided the ideal weapon for pinpoint accuracy in bombing. The He111 could take hundreds of .303 rounds and fly back, and the Ju88 was a formidable machine. The mistake was strategic again: there was no reason to bomb cities, they should have concentrated on factories, RADARs and RAF bases, and soon they would have achieved an air superiority to protect an invasion spearhead.

I think arrogance played a huge role in the Nazi "defeat" in the BoB. I think it again came into play with the decision to invade Russia (never a good idea for dictators lol).

I agree about Goering's arrogance, but the pilots were another game. Many of the "old dogs" hated Goering for his delirious view of the Luftwaffe.
Arrogance had nothing to do with the invasion of Russia, but this is another story..

BTW, in that post it may seem that I used the terms "Nazi" and "German" almost interchangeably. I try to keep a clear distinction in my head between the Nazi leadership and the German soldiers and civilians. I understand they were not the same and hope everyone else does too. I try to use the proper term when needed, but sometimes the differences are probably not clear. Hope that makes sense.

Splitter

No worries, we know (or at least I know) you don't mean to offend anyone

SJ

[Splitter]

Sternjaeger, excellent post.

I understand what you are saying, but I think that by the time the 109's got over England, they were matched pretty well by the Spits. The 109 was more versatile and with all other things being equal, I would have rather been in a 109. But if my choice was whether to fight in a Spit or a 109 in the BoB, I would rather have been in the Spit. I figure that I could fight on fairly equal terms with the 109 and if I got shot down, I stood a decent chance of living through it and going back up again in a different aircraft.

If a pilot got shot down in a 109 (or had a mechanical failure for that matter) during the BoB, chances were that the war was over for him. If he stayed too long and burned too much fuel, he may or may not make it back to friendly territory. Plus, his job was usually to protect bombers which takes away from his offensive capabilities.

I would disagree that German bombers were adequate still in the BoB because they lost so many of them. Part of that was tactics for sure, but the Stuka in particular was too slow all of a sudden. It had done well in previous campaigns but had not faced the combination of decent enemy fighters backed by RADAR. I think the one common plane I would not have liked to fly in most in the BoB would have been the Stuka...the loss rate was just too high.

Too bad that both sides greatly inflated their numbers of "victories" after the battle as the numbers cannot really be trusted.

Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces. That's the arrogance I spoke of. With fewer bomber losses and a more focused bombing campaign, I don't think the RAF could have held out much longer. History might have been much different.

As for the invasion of Russia...just a bad idea lol. Hitler and the gang thought they would roll over the Russians as they had done to opponents in Europe. They under estimated the Russians and therefore the time and resources it would take to defeat them. They didn't even prepare their troops with winter gear and their vehicles were not prepared for operations during a Russian winter. But, they didn't expect the campaign to take so long.

There is a measure of arrogance there I think. Hitler thought he could do what Napoleon could not. He thought the same equipment and tactics would work against Russia like they worked against the French and others previously conquered. He did not prepare for what became a brutal winter even by Russian standards.

Basically, Hitler wasted a lot of resources and troops. There was a reason the Allies decided it was better to keep him in power rather than assassinating him...his decisions most often helped the Allied cause lol. Even his generals who were good military men were often left scratching their heads.

This is the cool things about history. It's not about the dates and the names, it's about what the players may have been thinking and the effects their decisions had on outcomes. The lessons, if there are any to be had, are in the "why". Historians have been debating those things since...well, sine the beginning of history .

Good chat.

Splitter

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces.
Splitter

They actually had this already in the Bf110, but insisted on its continued use as a fighter.
If you look up the exploits of Eprobungsgruppe 210 during the Battle, they used Bf110's experimentally for shallow dive bombing at high speed, which proved as accurate as the Stukas, but with far superior speed and defence.
If this had been adopted as a widespread tactic, it would have been highly effective.
As it was, both the Stukas as bombers and the Bf110's as fighters were almost totally withdrawn from the Battle due to high losses..
Also, the Ju88 was renowned for being very tough to kill, and once the bombs had gone could be very difficult to catch.
As to whether the Battle was won, Sternjaeger and Mungee, Germany gave up before the Luftwaffe was wasted away altogether, (due to manufacturing and training shortcomings) the invasion plans were postponed (if it was ever really intended in the first place), and Britain was not forced to negotiate. What more of a definition of winning do people need?
They also had nine months between the BoB and Barbarossa to re-supply and train up. It's not like Barbarossa was immediately afterwards!

Originally Posted by Splitter

Sternjaeger, excellent post.

I understand what you are saying, but I think that by the time the 109's got over England, they were matched pretty well by the Spits. The 109 was more versatile and with all other things being equal, I would have rather been in a 109. But if my choice was whether to fight in a Spit or a 109 in the BoB, I would rather have been in the Spit. I figure that I could fight on fairly equal terms with the 109 and if I got shot down, I stood a decent chance of living through it and going back up again in a different aircraft.

If a pilot got shot down in a 109 (or had a mechanical failure for that matter) during the BoB, chances were that the war was over for him. If he stayed too long and burned too much fuel, he may or may not make it back to friendly territory. Plus, his job was usually to protect bombers which takes away from his offensive capabilities.

yeah, I'm not arguing over the tactical disadvantage of the Luftwaffe, I'm just saying that they had better aircrafts.

I would disagree that German bombers were adequate still in the BoB because they lost so many of them.

not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

Part of that was tactics for sure, but the Stuka in particular was too slow all of a sudden. It had done well in previous campaigns but had not faced the combination of decent enemy fighters backed by RADAR. I think the one common plane I would not have liked to fly in most in the BoB would have been the Stuka...the loss rate was just too high.

Too bad that both sides greatly inflated their numbers of "victories" after the battle as the numbers cannot really be trusted.

Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.

Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces. That's the arrogance I spoke of. With fewer bomber losses and a more focused bombing campaign, I don't think the RAF could have held out much longer. History might have been much different.

as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.

As for the invasion of Russia...just a bad idea lol. Hitler and the gang thought they would roll over the Russians as they had done to opponents in Europe. They under estimated the Russians and therefore the time and resources it would take to defeat them. They didn't even prepare their troops with winter gear and their vehicles were not prepared for operations during a Russian winter. But, they didn't expect the campaign to take so long.

There is a measure of arrogance there I think. Hitler thought he could do what Napoleon could not. He thought the same equipment and tactics would work against Russia like they worked against the French and others previously conquered. He did not prepare for what became a brutal winter even by Russian standards.

I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.
Germans weren't complete fools, they well knew that they stood a chance if they made it to Moscow. Everything was going according to plans, but then Hitler had one of his typical anal fits and decided to waste three weeks in the Dnepr area to get access to the coal mines, and that's the main reason why the Germans screwed up Barbarossa. If they stuck to the according plans and pushed straight to Moscow from the start he would have decapitated the Russian bear and things could have been quite different..

Basically, Hitler wasted a lot of resources and troops. There was a reason the Allies decided it was better to keep him in power rather than assassinating him...his decisions most often helped the Allied cause lol. Even his generals who were good military men were often left scratching their heads.

This is the cool things about history. It's not about the dates and the names, it's about what the players may have been thinking and the effects their decisions had on outcomes. The lessons, if there are any to be had, are in the "why". Historians have been debating those things since...well, sine the beginning of history .

Good chat.

Splitter

The real arrogance of the Germans was in the fact that they thought that the Allies wouldn't keep up and gear up for modern warfare in time. And if one side they got their ar$e kicked by the American technology, on the other side they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Russian troops (20mln+ of military casualties: the Jewish holocaust is a joke compared to it..).

I agree, this is a good chat indeed

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

yeah, I'm not arguing over the tactical disadvantage of the Luftwaffe, I'm just saying that they had better aircrafts.

not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562



Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.



as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.


I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.
Germans weren't complete fools, they well knew that they stood a chance if they made it to Moscow. Everything was going according to plans, but then Hitler had one of his typical anal fits and decided to waste three weeks in the Dnepr area to get access to the coal mines, and that's the main reason why the Germans screwed up Barbarossa. If they stuck to the according plans and pushed straight to Moscow from the start he would have decapitated the Russian bear and things could have been quite different..

The real arrogance of the Germans was in the fact that they thought that the Allies wouldn't keep up and gear up for modern warfare in time. And if one side they got their ar$e kicked by the American technology, on the other side they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Russian troops (20mln+ of military casualties: the Jewish holocaust is a joke compared to it..).

I agree, this is a good chat indeed

I really don't see a lot of contradictions, just small points on either side of similar conclusions .

On Stukas, they were withdrawn from combat operations after losing about 1/5 of their force in about 10 days (doing it from memory, forgive me if I am off). Planes like that need either skies that are cleared of enemy fighters or really slow enemy fighters. The Americans suffered similar losses with their dive bombers in the Pacific.

Hitler was the biggest problem the Nazis had militarily. Really...they guy could screw up a wet dream. He thought his time as a corporal running messages (rather brave I must say though) somehow qualified him to run military campaigns. After him, you have to look at his cronies as the incompetents in charge.

The generals were often very good military men. The soldiers were as good as any on any side. Their equipment was decent. The problem was always leadership (I'm separating military operations from political motivations obviously).

Making it to Moscow was a huge gamble and they greatly underestimated the Russian people. The Russians willingly sacrificed millions of civilian lives to stem the German tide...not something the Nazi leadership counted on. They certainly did not count on the T-34 either in quality or quantity. As I said in another thread, rule number one for aspiring dictators is DO NOT invade Russia lol. To expect the whole campaign to go like clockwork on schedule and to not prepare for contingencies (like General Winter) was pure foolishness which I think stemmed from Hitler's arrogance.

Germans were not fools, but Hitler and his cronies were.

BTW, I have never been clear on whether or not Hitler approved the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor prior to it happening. I know he turned around and declared war on the US, but I find it hard to believe that he thought bringing the US industrial might into the war was a good idea....though he was probably tired of lend-lease by then.

Splitter

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

...
not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :

Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.

Really have to disagree here. The Stukas were withdrawn from the battle on 19th August, so quoting loss rates for the entire period of the battle will give a misleadingly low measure for the Stuka's relative vulnerability.

To get a proper picture we'd need to look at relative percentage of type loss rates for German bomber types over the common period that they were employed.

The fact is though that they were withdrawn by Goering because of unacceptable attrition/loss rates.

(Also, I think you are perhaps a little too quick to define positions that you personally have trouble accepting as 'propaganda'.)

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.

...which had loss rates comparable to the Stuka, but unlike them were maintained in the battle due to Goering's obstinacy, eventually being given 109 escorts!

edit: in the interests of fairness - and having re-read the post that this quote was actually referring to - I would agree that the 110 could perhaps have been used more successfully in the fighter-bomber role rather than persisting as a straight fighter

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.

With great respect, you don't seem averse to a spot of this yourself

[kendo65]

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!

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."