The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[MD_Titus]

43 pages, any of them worth reading?

I see stern is doing his passive aggressive stuff again.

Re the initial statement - yes, if defeat equals failure to meet objectives. Bungay's "most dangerous enemy" is a great read, and a very good handling of the topic that strips away other british account's bias. As to it's academic value, well considering the number of flight sim history buffs who recommend it... Got to have some value. Only an idiot would dismiss it without reading it.

Wellum and Steinhilper's books are superb first hand accounts, and give a texture to one's understanding, but should not be referred to as an historical analysis.

[nearmiss]

Stern, Orville,etc

You guys want to have verbal fight. Not here!

Take your comments to PM, or better still use the ignore list.

Otherwise, you will be a part of history on this forums.

Mods have let you run, but it's time you took the flames elsewhere.

Your posts have been reported several times in this thread.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Rgr and fair enough. Ignore list it is......

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It's not there for perspectives, national or otherwise, its there for learning mechanics. It's like looking at a car as a work of art or as a piece of machinery. The first is great for passion, the second is great for understanding how it came into being and how it works.

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by kendo65

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

good post.

it does seem that the BoB was seen at the time as a barring of the door, a halting of the steamroller that had conquered much of europe in such a short period of time. we were fearfully aware of how ill-equipped our army was after it's narrow escape, even going to the extent of replacing armoured vehicles with flatbed truck and concrete. if seelowe had achieved it's stated aims (however implausible this appears to us after the fact, relying on the destruction of fighter cover over the channel, further degradation of the royal navy, good weather etc etc) then britain would have either been invaded or sued for peace (which elements of the commons were driving for during the battle). this could also have come to pass during the battle of the atlantic, which in fact was a more grievous threat to the nation than seelowe ever hoped to be. no britain - no aircraft carrier off the coast of europe for later use in the war. considering how instrumental russia was in actually defeating germany it may not have affected the ultimate outcome, but having to guard two fronts and divide what was essentially a tactical force (luftwaffe) cannot have helped barbarossa or future endeavours.

[Al Schlageter]

Sternjaeger II, if you don't consider the BoB warrants a 'Battle' nomenclature, then what other 'Battles' would you say were not, or were, 'Battles'?

[zakkandrachoff]

EEUU said to Hitler, "hey, stop bombing England for now, his economy is now like we want it to be, and go to Russia, the communist are plague in everywhere"

nana

Luftwaffe don't have the correct plane: They must nedd:; The Focke Wulf 190 and the Bf-109F, and big numbers of FW200 Condors.
if germany had this in 1940, they maybe are at the level of an invation.
Bf109E-4 was not the correct plane. first of all, low autonomy and incorrect armament. That problem of the MMGG in the engine must be fixed before the campaign. but... the corruption affect all goberments.

And i Vote for the He100, best than the BF109E:
670kmh 1.100km autonomy and engine cannon.

[kendo65]

Either my last post was amazingly good or everyone has been banned??! Have the mods been having a clear-out?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Either my last post was amazingly good or everyone has been banned??! Have the mods been having a clear-out?

Your last post was amazingly good, but after the last few days it's possible some people needed a breather.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Sternjaeger II, if you don't consider the BoB warrants a 'Battle' nomenclature, then what other 'Battles' would you say were not, or were, 'Battles'?

by definition a battle is a conflict that happens between two parts in a precise lapse of time. The end can be a victory of one side or a draw, but there needs to be an end.

In the way things evolved, the battle against Britain wasn't over until VE day, the plan of undermining morale and assessing damage to England was still carried out with V1s and V2s. The fact that air operations got less intense and eventually the force was moved somewhere else meant that there was a change of tactics, not a crippling blow to the Luftwaffe which stopped them from operating as an Air Force. The aerial clashes over the Channel were part of a bigger plot, not a battle per se.

I understand the need for a sense of "battle" and "united we stand", but there's no logic nor nobility in a modern war like WW2, that's why I think the whole concept of the Battle of Britain is a bit bogus, and the clashes over the channel resulted into a draw.