Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[DD_crash]

What is wrong with beans on toast??????? on the other hand dont tell me

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

I have a version of history, that I would like to simply throw into the room here, not knowing if its same kind of propaganda like above or not. It was however teached to me by a medium (I don't know, which, TV or books) and although I never bet much on it, it has influenced my thinking and so I'd still like to see it discussed.

That version goes in short following:

FC was indeed near to be downed at one point of the battle (lack of pilots and/or planes) and only the tactical changing of the Luftwaffes orders (to attack cities, not airfields anymore) save it from being extinguished.
That change was probably ingnited by a Ju88, that dropped its bombs accidentially over London, which was avenged by RAF bombing Berlin in (one of) the next night. Since then Hitler gaver order to attack cities to counter that terror with terror.

I bet its wrong in detail, but what about it in the general layout?

Maybe had something to do with the day when all British reserves were committed. Perhaps that day the LW had sent all theirs too? One more raid would have gone through untouched and the limit of resistance would have been seen.

Best luck for the British was that the German Leader was no good at being Mr. Cool and Collected.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Untamo

Nooot entirely true. The German strategy was heavily bent on disabling the British airfields with bombers by cratering them and destroying planes on them. Which they did quite efficiently. So efficiently that the air defence of Southern England was on the brink of collapse...until some stray German bomber accidentally dropped its bombs in the London suburbs. Churchill ordered a retaliation for attacking civilian targets.

After the British retaliation strikes on German cities, angered Hitler ordered the bombers concentrate on Britain's cities, mainly London, which of course let the British repair the fields and continue operating them.

Biiig mistake. I seriously believe that there might have been a very different outcome to the battle if this hadn't happened... But that's just pure speculation

What you are saying is correct as far as the action taken by the Luftwaffe. That does not change the fact the LW mission was to gain air superiority over the invasion area.

DIRECTIVE NO. 17

FOR THE CONDUCT OF AIR AND NAVAL WARFARE AGAINST ENGLAND

For the purpose of creating conditions for the final defeat of Britain, I intend continuing air and naval warfare against the English motherland in a more severe form than hitherto. For this purpose I order as follows:

1. The Luftwaffe will employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible. In the initial stages, attacks will be directed primarily against the hostile air forces and their ground service organization and supply installations, and against air armament industries, including factories producing AAA equipment.

2. Once temporary or local air superiority is achieved, operations will continue against ports, particularly against installations for the storage of food, and against food storage installations farther inland. In view of intended future German operations, attacks against ports on the south coast of England will be restricted to a minimum.

3. Air operations against hostile naval and merchant ships will be considered a secondary mission during this phase unless particularly lucrative fleeting opportunities offer or unless such action will achieve increased effects in the operations prescribed under Item 2, above, or in the case of operations serving to train aircraft crews for the continued conduct of air warfare.

4. The intensified air offensive will be so conducted that adequately strong air forces can be made available whenever required to support naval operations against favorable fleeting targets. In addition, the Luftwaffe will remain prepared to render effective support for Operation Sea Lion.

5. Terrorization attacks as retaliatory measures will be carried out only on orders from me.

6. Intensified air warfare can commence at any time from 5 August on. The Luftwaffe will itself determine the deadline after completion of its preparations and in accordance with weather conditions.

s/ Adolf Hitler

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/...-German-A.html

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Ah.. I seem to have missed that post from Untamo ... so it seems to be at least a spread knowledge. Thanks.

Britain didn't loose because of only one strayed german bomber?
As a consequence you could say, it would have lost? Thats the interesting point.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Ah.. I seem to have missed that post from Untamo ... so it seems to be at least a spread knowledge. Thanks.

Britain didn't loose because of only one strayed german bomber?
As a consequence you could say, it would have lost? Thats the interesting point.

Funny, if you think it through in all it's consequences, this one german bomber maybe changed the outcome of the entire war.

[Crumpp]

I seriously believe that there might have been a very different outcome to the battle if this hadn't happened... But that's just pure speculation

As a consequence you could say, it would have lost?

Whose to say. In my opinion they would have lost.

I see Germany got lucky in the fact all of her opponents up until England were even more unprepared for war than she was.....

The Luftwaffe logistical system was just not up to the task of gaining air superiority over England.

Germany was taking losses at a much lower rate than the RAF but still the rate was more than Germany could sustain.

In fact the German logistical system was so poor that even before the Battle of Britain, German pilot losses were more than they could sustain. Germany had a shortage of training resources and pilots before the war even began.

I see the fundamental failure in the German logistical system is the fact the Geschwader's owned the airplanes. When an aircraft was damaged and required depot level maintenance, it stayed on the Geschwaders books and counted against it's strength until it was repaired. It simply left the fighting units without an airplane while the airplane was in maintenance.

The British system had a separate organization that was responsible for fixing anything but minor damage. If the airframe was going to be down for the next days operations, it was released from the Squadron's and that maintenance organization would issue out an operational replacement almost immediately.

This meant that while FC was taking much heavier losses than the LW, the FC Squadrons were almost always at higher organizational readiness and could keep more airplanes in the fight than the Germans.

[nearmiss]

It would have taken a huge land invasion for Germany to defeat Britain. All the German battles for superiority from the air failed in the BOB.

German arrogance was superior to their stupidity for not scrutinizing the British tenacity, resources and ability to defend "their island". The Germans did not do a sensible accounting to determine whether they could win.

Hitler was surrounded by Yes men, and dolts, with few exceptions. The Luftwaffe's record was always backed up by land forces. This was ignored by Hitler. The arrogant Hitler and Hermann Göring were full of cheese and confidence.

Everything the Luftwaffe could muster was used against England and results were rarely acceptable. The lightning air war just didn't cut it with the bulldog tenacity of the British... to never give up.

It would take some very powerful arguments or debate to convince anyone that Germany achieved any kind of victory in the Battle of Britain.

So lose, quit, walkaway, find something else to do could never be considered a victory. Unless victory meant something entirely different than it is explained in a dictionary.

Undoubtedly... the Brits won the Battle fo Britain.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Britain didn't loose because of only one strayed german bomber?

Let's say that winning was easier because of it.

As a consequence you could say, it would have lost? Thats the interesting point.

It doesn't necessarily follow. Most of the aircraft were off the fighter bases by the time the bombers came over, and there were bases further north they could get to if their own bases were incapable of receiving them.

It would IMHO have been at least another month for things to become impossible if the bases had been continually bombed (though they were becoming uncomfortable at the time Hitler switched), and even that is by no means a certainty. By a couple of months, the autumn weather would have been too rough for the crossing.

If there had been an attempted crossing the British Navy would have been there to fight it, even if that meant losing all their ships, which even with no RAF at all is not IMO that likely.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Now that is some pathetic sheet! Pure postwar-propaganda.
Sometimes I'm pretty glad, that I am living in the 'land that lost'.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed. The German onslaught in Western Europe was brought to a halt for the first time.

The following year Hitler led the German nation against Russia and the rest is history..........

I'd be very interested in hearing how this period of history is taught in German schools these days.

[Crumpp]

They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed.

If their logistical system was different and they did not tie the airframe to the unit, it would have overcome much of the attrition problems.

They still had pilot shortages but they also never took the emergency measures that England did to fill those shortages. The Luftwaffe fought the campaign with the same pilot pool that started the war.

Dowding with much foresight was shoving anyone who could fly into a fighter cockpit during the battle.

The Luftwaffe was the winner on a tactical level and suffered a lower attrition rate because of it.

Warfare is filled with such examples of forces winning the tactical fight on the battlefield but not achieving a strategic victory. What matters ultimately England was not invaded by the Germans. The Allies are the clear winner in the Battle of Britain.

It would IMHO have been at least another month for things to become impossible if the bases had been continually bombed (though they were becoming uncomfortable at the time Hitler switched), and even that is by no means a certainty. By a couple of months, the autumn weather would have been too rough for the crossing.

I agree with your assessment. Galland points out that plans for the invasion were not considered serious by the officers of the German Military.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

It certainly reads as post-war propaganda and offers a very myopic view that does not accurately reflect the facts.

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge

No they did not give the RAF the edge. They simply put the aircraft on par. this made things more difficult for the Luftwaffe but it not factual to say the Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle by defeating the Bf-109.

The facts say the tactical battle was a loss for the Hurricane and Spitfire.



The Strategic battle was won by the RAF for a number of reasons.

The RAF had the best interception and control procedures in the world. They had more SE fighters and maintained a much higher sortie rate. This was backed up by a brilliant logistical system that allowed their units to maintain very high operational readiness states.



Individual aircraft performance had nothing to do with it at all. The performance margins simply are not large enough.