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

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry Mike, but the RAF was up there mainly to stop bombers, not to fight against Luftwaffe fighters. Although they shot down many, many others delivered their lethal load to hundreds of targets in Britain, making thousands of victims. Is that a victory?

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by blackmme

Yep sure is. The Luftwaffe's job (according to FD16) was to make an invasion uneccessary (by getting the Brits to the negotiating table, which Hitler expected) or make it possible.

It failed in both, lots of people were killed by bombs, lots of RAF fighters were shot down and the Germans never got close to achieving either aim.

The RAF succeeded in what it had to do. The Luftwaffe failed in what it had to do.

So yes that's a victory.

Is your definition of a victory that for it to be so you can't sustain any damage or casulties?

Regards Mike

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I dunno man, it's a combination of facts that makes me think it was a draw:

1) Germany didn't achieve its results as planned, but it didn't give up, it turned its attention to another front.
2) Britain did sustain a lot of damage by the bombing raids, which continued well into 1941.
3) There was no change in terms of territorial dominance (heck, channel islands weren't even freed until the end of the war!), just a war of attrition, with Britain sustaining more of the damage.

1. It didn't give up, it just stopped trying... uhuh gotcha....

2. Yes but unless one of those raids had a nuke onboard it wasn't going to change diddly....

3. Yes you are correct there was no change of territorial dominance. Trouble for your argument is that one of the stated aims of one side was to affect a change of territorial dominance and the stated aim of the other was to prevent this!

And yet you think it was a draw.....

Regards Mike

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by sternjaeger ii

which year is this?

Originally Posted by dutch_851

'the official government publication called the battle of britiain, which tells the story of those glorious days when the r.a.f. Hurled back the overwhelming might of the luftwaffe between august and october last year, has proved of so great interest to the public that all copies have been sold out at his majesty's stationery office, kingsway, london.

1941

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

1941

I'm confused, so what's this to prove?

[DD_crash]

Stern, you asked what year the book was published by the way the clue was "October LAST year" This thread reminds me of the Odin thread on the zoo. He thought that the Brits should have lost because they deserved to. He got very upset and ended up banned by BG.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm confused...

Indeed!