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

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

You.

Shall.

NOT.

Die.

Must try to get to 100 pages.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I suppose it was developed because of the logistic needs of Barbarossa, if we're going by speculation I'd say that, had an airborne invasion planned before, they might have been able to deliver the 321 earlier.

During the preparations for a possible invasion of Britain during World War II (Operation Sea Lion) it became obvious to the Luftwaffe's Transport Command that there was a need for a larger capacity cargo- and troop-carrying aircraft than its mainstay, the Junkers Ju 52.

In December 1939, the German Army issued its own study paper (designated Nordwest) and solicited opinions and input from both the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. The paper outlined an assault on England's eastern coast between The Wash and the River Thames by troops crossing the North Sea from Low Country ports.

same as above, despite the losses, if they knew they needed more paras, they would have concentrated on that.

see the above

I think I might have a faint idea, I was only 18 when I served in the Army initially, but I've seen enough divisions to know what the logistic needs are
You can appreciate that massive drops from the Ju52s and capturing strategic enemy facilities/vehicles etc.. could have been part of the invasion. Paras are renown for improvising with what they find available.

German Infantry divisions required 80 tons per day when inactive and 1,100 tons a day in heavy fighting. (in Russia) (Source: "German Tanks at War" by Bob Carruthers).

Junkers Ju 52 had a lift capacity of ~2 tons. How many Ju52s were there. Then there is losses due to enemy, crashes, mechanical failures, ......

well, not enough to cause a complete blockade afaik.

see bold text

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Must try to get to 100 pages.

it's close

[MD_Titus]

how about if they had conducted their air assault using the smaller low level raids that gave a better cost/benefit than the massed raids? hitting multiple targets at as little interval as possible would've played havoc with plotting intercepts, and could have allowed fighters sweeping shortly after to catch the RAF in the air or landing after scrambling in response to the first wave of attacks.

was always one of the problems with fighter sweeps, radar could usually pick out what was bombers and what was a trap. rarely afforded the the luftwaffe the chance to get the required 5-1 k/d ratio that would've been needed to destroy the RAF as a fighting force, and using 109s as close escorts just shackled them. better to use the bf110 and ju88 as the low level raiders unescorted, and rely on not getting picked up by radar, only the less efficient observer corps.

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Jimmy! You are a very naughty boy!



If you listen to wiki leeks you deserve to believe every thing that you do!



MI5 are public servants! Logic would have told us that they would have been too busy waiting for the Tea Trolly to wheel past their desks to go and plant bombs anywhere.



This may have been the case but since Henry the 8th renounced the pope and set himself up as head of the Church of England I'm afraid those Authurian warriors probably have better things to do! (See my note about MI5!)



Unfortunately without DNA evidence your 'V' theory cannot be validated!

Ditto!

[/QUOTE]

[raaaid]

i think the brilliant tactic by churchill was porovcking hitler into bombing his cities( did the luftwaffe really got their bombs wrong when the 1st city was bombed or was it staged?)

it deviated attention form main targets and he new the war of terro actually contrary to its intend boosts morale

edit:


theres no stronger weapon than the moral that gives knowing your self righteous and the divine justice that that brings

[MB_Avro_UK]

Didn't Galland say something about the Battle of Britain from his perspective did not end? And that the invasion of Russia just changed priorities?

After reading Spitfire on my Tail by a German Me109 pilot, I get the impression that Galland as a tactition was not highly regarded.

For instance, Galland opposed the use of radios in 109s during the BoB due to their weight penalty.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[MD_Titus]

Steinhilper seemed to have a rather low opinion of galland as a tactician... and as a flight leader. The luftwaffe aces tended to put a kill above the poor katschmareks.

Wasn't the main issue with radios that the fighters and bombers had different crystald, leading to tragedy as missions were called off, and bombers left unescorted. in one case the fighters received the recall, butdespite aerobatics and the fighter formation leader's best efforts to get the bombers to turn back they advanced aline and got torn to shreds.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

Steinhilper seemed to have a rather low opinion of galland as a tactician... and as a flight leader. The luftwaffe aces tended to put a kill above the poor katschmareks.

Wasn't the main issue with radios that the fighters and bombers had different crystald, leading to tragedy as missions were called off, and bombers left unescorted. in one case the fighters received the recall, butdespite aerobatics and the fighter formation leader's best efforts to get the bombers to turn back they advanced aline and got torn to shreds.

As much as I like Steinhilper's book,I still do believe he had a somehow narrow view of the war,since he spent most of it as an escaping POW. Galland had his quirks,but together with Mölders he had a great understanding of aerial warfare, millions of times better than the RLM. I often wonder how Möelders would have been like, had he not died prematurely.

[SNAFU]

Reading the "First and the Last" and other books like the mentioned "Their most dangerous enemies", "Spitfire", "The BoB" Marce l Lullian, "Operation Eagle" Len Deigthon..., I tend to put Galland rahter in the education of the days between WWI and its remains.

I guess Galland was still in his hype of the "easy" days in Spain with "Legion-Condor,-we-just-waggel-our-wings-and-everything-is-right". He was opposing the use of radios in fighters (and I can understand the KISS/S philosophy), but for opposing the first sohisticated air defence, I guess he was not prepared nor was any of the LW stuff, hanging to the beliefs of knight duells. Even if he understood the basics of aerial warfare, he didn´t seem to be great teamplayer. And the team play was, what made the RAF and the FC strong, or not?