Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[csThor]

The BoB was really irrelevant to the US in general. The US society considered the war a "European Problem" and only after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war it became "their" problem, too.

[Stuntie]

I've read the 'Sealion' invasion report.
Generally a fine wargame, but I do disagree on one critical point.
The Royal Navy would have sent in the big guns along with the cruisers and destroyers, and most liley enmasse.

Firstly there is the issue of Service pride - that Trafalgar thing that makes the Royal Navy Britains main line of defense. Ok, reality had shifted it to airpower, but the RN would have gone in to prove that they were still the decisive factor. Frankly I can not imagine the RN not throwing the big guns in to such a decisive battle.
The Armada > Trafalgar > Jutland > The Channel 1940.
Anything else would have been unthinkable.

What could be gained from not using them compared to what could be lost?
What is better - loosing a BB or several or loosing the war?
An established bridgehead would have meant defeat for Britain, and the loss of her BB's as well most likely as they would be handed over like the German High seas fleet was in 1918. BB's can be rebuilt should you win.

Bullet mangnets? Yes they would have drawn the Germans like moths to a flame, but every attack on them is an attck not happening to other naval assets. Add in their greater ability to weather such damage and you have a lot of tough nuts to crack. And if they were taken out then by being bullet magnets a larger number of their escort would have got through for the engagement, ships that would have otherwise been the targets and sunk.

Political compulsion.
I can't see Churchill keeping them out - his biggest asset in a sea fight when all over air and land forces are being thrown in to the climatic battle for Britains survival. It's just not him.

So I personally would believe a large Naval force of BB's plus numerous assests would have forced the channel and wrecked havoc. Even with significant loss to the naval forces they would have devestated the invasion fleet.

The invasion would have been a blood bath. Think dunkirk, but with hostile naval forces involved as well!

[planespotter]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

I really doubt that. According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Bri...s_contribution ) only 7 US pilots servered in the RAF during the BoB, and they were "incognito" because US citizens were prohibited due to US Neutrality Acts.

Exactly my point, sorry if it was badly made. During the actual Battle, there were very few US pilots involved, but because of the success of the Battle from a US PR point of view, you will find that before Pearl Harbour more than 6,000 US pilots had applied to join the RAF/RCAF to fight in Europe, indicating the the US citizen did indeed see it as 'their problem' long before the US was attacked by Japan.

The first 'Eagle Squadron' was formed in Sept 1940. US neutrality did not pertain, because they joined as private citizens.

Three 'Eagle Squadrons' were formed and became the famed 4th Fighter Group of the USAF 8th airforce. Without the perception of victory in the Battle of Britain, there might still only have been seven US pilots in Britain at that point!

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by csThor

The BoB was really irrelevant to the US in general. The US society considered the war a "European Problem" and only after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war it became "their" problem, too.

Among the US bean counters, it was very much an American "economic" problem. All trade to Europe was effectively strangled by the war. Once the US had finished milking the British cow - as Roosevelt put it, they needed to get involved to regain their foreign market. There were plenty of Senate debates on this before Pearl Harbour. The surprise attack only accelerated the process.

[biggles109]

Hitler had no intention to invade Germany. There were never enough sea transport resources assembled to transport the first wave of troops, the amphibious tanks were designed for river crossings in the east, not sea landings, adolf galland said the plan was never serious, cooperation between luftwaffe, army and navy was never properly established, and as soon as sealion was abandoned Hitler sent Hess to Britain to sue for peace.

His real goal with the Eagle campaign was to bomb Britain to the negotiating table and neutralise the UK to free himself for the Eastern Front.

That said, it would be great to see a Sealion campaign or even just a few missions in SoW if the LW player can achieve air superiority!!

PLEASE!

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by biggles109

Hitler had no intention to invade Germany.

Invade Germany?

You should read the thread at the Zoo where one called Odin says an invasion would have been successful.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by csThor

The BoB was really irrelevant to the US in general. The US society considered the war a "European Problem" and only after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war it became "their" problem, too.

Not correct. The President of the United States Franklin Delanor Roosevelt considered the survival of Britain to be crucial to the interests of the United States. He was supported by large segment of the population, including most of the well educated. Unfortunately, there was another segment, equally as large, who were against the war for reasons that had either to do with anti-european feelings, (isolationism) or pro-German feelings. These included people like the Ford (car manufacturing) family, Dubya's Grandfather, Joe Kennedy, (father of John) etc.

Roosevelt could not ignore the 50% of the population who were against involvement, but he did everything he could to assist Britain, short of declaring war. That included the "Lendlease" act, which allowed Britain to take ownership of war armaments without paying for them, the gift of 50 Destroyers, (crucial to the defence of the convoy routes) in exchange for bases in the Caribbean, etc. Without U.S. help, Britain would not have survived.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by biggles109

Hitler had no intention to invade Germany. the amphibious tanks were designed for river crossings in the east, not sea landings

Sorry Biggles, you got it backwards. The tanks were converted for amphibious use for Sealion, then, when Sealion was cancelled, later used in the Barbarossa campaign for wading rivers.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

The Battle of Britain was a draw. Neither side won outright.
The loss of pilots was similar on both sides.

Not correct. The Germans lost far more pilots and aircrew. Many RAF pilots were able to bail out of damaged planes and fight again. Not so for Luftwaffe pilots who bailed out over England.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

Let me start with "I don't believe that Germany won the Battle of Britain", for those requiring a simple answer. I wonder how many of the "revisionist screamers" actually read Lt Col Lund's article which was referenced in the linked article. For those who missed the link, or did not read it, here it is:

http://funsite.unc.edu/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/

Remember that this is a USAF Joint Doctrine Air Campaign Course, written by a United States Air Force Officer.

I read the article.

That linked article has a clear conclusion:

Germany lost the Battle of Britain.

How the site which has the link on it could come to the conclusion that Germany didn't lose the BoB based on the linked article is a real question...

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

The assumption presented by some seems to be that since there was a plan for Seelowe, the Germany was 100% committed to it. This is only true with respect to the Luftwaffe.

Then why did Hitler move 330,000 troops to the French coast, move barges which were crucial to German industry away from the Rhine and other rivers to the French coast, convert 130 + tanks to amphibious use, move large parts of his fleet, etc. etc. Seelowe was much more than a 'plan'. It was an operational order.

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

After allowing the BEF to escape at Dunkirk, Hitler fully expected to work out a "deal" with Britain.

Amazing... another myth rears its whimpering pathetic head...

Hitler did not 'allow' anyone escape at Dunkirk, he did his best to capture all the forces which were trapped there. Following normal operational procedure for the German Army, once the pocket had been formed, the Panzers were moved onwards to position themselves for the next breakthrough (which ended up being on either side of Paris) Panzers did not reduce pockets, they left the mopping up to Infantry. The entirety of the Army Gruppe B which had come through the Netherlands, plus most of the Infantry from Army Gruppe A did what was expected, and started to reduce the pocket. The Germans never expected the British could evacuate the BEF, let alone 100,000 Frenchmen. They thought they had them in the bag. Operationally, the Germans were more concerned about a counterattack from the south to relieve the pocket, than they were about an evacuation. That is another reason for the repositioning of the Panzers southwards. The Luftwaffe, which up to this point had been completely successful in all its tasks, assured Hitler that the Royal Navy would be bombed out of existence if they showed themselves on the French side of the channel. Too bad that Dowding committed enough Spitfires and Hurricanes to make it impossible for the Luftwaffe to stop the RN. And that the British and French within the pocket, fought very hard and skillfully, because now, the Germans were not behind them, or outflanking them, but were forced to go headon against desperate men.

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

For example, the argument that the British success in the Air Defense of the home Island started a chain reaction that forced Hitler to invade Yugoslavia is absurd. The poster of that silly conclusion needs to examine the Balkans campaign in it's entirety.

I have examined the Balkan campaign in great detail. I think perhaps you should do the same.

Like for example, doing some reading on the Yugoslavian coup, which was sponsored by the British, and which led to the Nazi sympathetic government being overthrown, and then to Hitler invading. The regent Prince Paul, who was a client of the Nazis, signed the Tripartite pact on March 25th. Two days later he was overthrown in a coup led by the 18 year old British sponsored King Peter and Yugoslavia's agreement was voided. Hitler responded by postponing Operation Barbarossa and started the bombing of Belgrade on April 6th, with the invasion following shortly thereafter. Please explain how such a coup could have happened in the Spring of 1941, if the British had lost the BoB and were no longer in at war with Germany????