Battle of Britain books. Recommendations?

[Al Schlageter]

The Germans still could not replace their bomber losses Barbi to the April numbers. They were still short by ~300 of their strength in April at the end of 1940. And the numbers down slight, in contrast to you claim of a slight increase.

[Kurfürst]

Well the point is that as opposed to Bungay's claims, the German bomber losses were not prohibitive at all during BoB. They could just replace what they lost, and could keep the pace of operations until the World would end.

"And the numbers down slight, in contrast to you claim of a slight increase."

1380 bombers at the start of the Battle, 1423 bombers at the time the British consider the Battle to have ended. You must be a wizz with maths.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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?

I think your belief that the Germans couldn't carry on with the operation and eventually cause some serious ballache is delusional.. thank God Hitler was a bit ADD..

The Kriegsmarine U-Boote at night would have minced the Royal Navy ships in such a confined space and being so close to their bases..

[Anvilfolk]

Thanks Sternjaeger, for clarifying your opinion. That first post of yours wasn't much help

This certainly makes me reevaluate my ideas about the BoB. However, while you are discussing planes, I am thinking about pilots. It's perfectly possibly that Germany had enough production power to keep a relatively stable number of bombers, but what about bomber crews? They take much longer to train, and efficiency increases with experience. Was the loss of pilots and aircrew a problem?

I understand that the RAF was having serious problems - while the number of pilots might have increased (I think I read this in Bungay's book), they had virtually no training. Given that, they were usually shot down just as fast as they came into operational squadrons. And because the battle was fought over Britain, the RAF had a great advantage in keeping pilots in the battle.

Might that have been an argument in favour of Bungay's idea?

Originally Posted by Anvilfolk

Thanks Sternjaeger, for clarifying your opinion. That first post of yours wasn't much help

This certainly makes me reevaluate my ideas about the BoB. However, while you are discussing planes, I am thinking about pilots. It's perfectly possibly that Germany had enough production power to keep a relatively stable number of bombers, but what about bomber crews? They take much longer to train, and efficiency increases with experience. Was the loss of pilots and aircrew a problem?

It's a relative problem, and pilots' shortage became an issue only in late 1943. The idea is that the only highly trained members of crew were pilot officers, while the rest of the crew (gunners, bombers, radio operators), were quicker and cheaper to train.

During the Battle of Britain German pilots were also doped with benzedrine, it came in little sheets that were diluted in their coffee to keep them alert and awake for longer, and considering the short distance to fly, a crew could fly for at least two sorties a day.

The RAF was no better, giving amphetamines to their pilots..

I understand that the RAF was having serious problems - while the number of pilots might have increased (I think I read this in Bungay's book), they had virtually no training. Given that, they were usually shot down just as fast as they came into operational squadrons. And because the battle was fought over Britain, the RAF had a great advantage in keeping pilots in the battle.

Might that have been an argument in favour of Bungay's idea?

That's typical Bungay: the number of pilots increased (and I'm not even sure about that) cos they gave wings to guys with just 250 flying hours. Truth is that the RAF had a dramatic shortage of pilots throughout the whole conflict, that's why they outsourced pilots from allied countries and the commonwealth.

The most successful squadrons during the Battle of Britain were the Polish and Czech ones, which had a far superior training than their British counterparts, and despite these skilled pilots it took a lot of trial and error before the RAF fighter groups were actually effective against the Luftwaffe. They didn't learn much from the French campaign, there was a somewhat banterish atmosphere (well portrayed in "Piece of Cake") which hit the grim reality when fighter planes were shot down like flies over the Channel.

Another aspect is that many shot down pilots were horribly injured (many suffered terrible burns due to the stupid positioning of the fuselage fuel tank) and not fit to get back in the fight.

It was a close call, and again it was lost by the Germans, not won by the RAF.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I never said I am an Englishman

Nor did I. I was referring to the 'we English won the war because we're superior, period' rubbish.

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Nor did I. I was referring to the 'we English won the war because we're superior, period' rubbish.

I completely agree, it's rubbish.

God knows how many "sunday historians" I met that jolly argued that WW2 was won by the Spitfire.. Bungay is a sort of elaborated version of these muppets, trying to give a revisionist version based on nothing..

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Bungay is a sort of elaborated version of these muppets, trying to give a revisionist version based on nothing..

Ok, ok, I get it, you don't like the book or the writer.

Now can we get back to recommending books rather than hijacking the thread with another endless tirade?

Cheers

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Ok, ok, I get it, you don't like the book or the writer.

Now can we get back to recommending books rather than hijacking the thread with another endless tirade?

Cheers

Absolutely

"Nine Lives" by Alan C Deere, superb read!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Absolutely

"Nine Lives" by Alan C Deere, superb read!

Thankyou Stern, good call, not read this one either.