Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[Asheshouse]

As things played out the fact is that the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority, a pre-requisite for an invasion attempt and therefore failed strategically.

Tactically the issue was undecided. The RAF refused to be drawn into a fighter v fighter struggle and concentrated on attacks on the bombers, which were the only thing that could do damage. Dowding carefully managed the strength and fighting efficiency of the RAF by holding units back and rotating units out of the southeast sector.

Now the big "what if" -- If the German forces had decided to attempt an invasion and if the Luftwaffe could prevent the Royal Navy intervening then the RAF would have been forced into a fighter v fighter conflict for air supremacy over the channel coast. Things may then have gone very differently.

[MaxGunz]

Planes can be replaced far quicker than pilots and crew. The LW lost a lot of trained pilots and crew -for no real gain- in the BoB. How many of those had been glider pilots since they were kids, knowing energy and maneuver in ways most power pilots don't learn for a long time?

There is also the morale loss to the entire German military. They were stopped for the first time. But that's okay since they got used to it in time to ;earn the new lessons; How to Lose Ground 101, 201, etc.

[Crumpp]

Now that is some pathetic sheet! Pure postwar-propaganda.
Sometimes I'm pretty glad, that I am living in the 'land that lost'.

It is same in most countries. I saw the other day where a museum worker was writing an article on the "P47 problem" trying to attribute the performance of the P47 to the destruction of the Luftwaffe.

I agree with him that the P47 is type of aircraft that shot down most of the Luftwaffe and bore the brunt of that task.

However, the USAAF could have practically flown paper airplanes and beat the Luftwaffe under the conditions of 1944 with the numerical superiority and pilot quality advantage in the Allies possession.

It was men and not machines that won the day, just like the Battle of Britain. My hat is off to the pilots of the RAF who served in that time.

Churchill was right in calling them "the Few". If you examine the data, it was a meat grinder for the FC pilots. The world should be thankful for the lucky few who survived and those who gave all of their tomorrows.

(13) E. B. Haslam, Journal of Strategic Studies (June, 1981):
It was estimated in the summer of the battle that every pilot kept in action for more than six months would be shot down because he was exhausted or stale, or even because he had lost the will to fight. In terms of flying hours the fighter pilot's life expectancy could be measured at eighty-seven.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I have a version of history, that I would like to simply throw into the room here, not knowing if its same kind of propaganda like above or not. It was however teached to me by a medium (I don't know, which, TV or books) and although I never bet much on it, it has influenced my thinking and so I'd still like to see it discussed.

That version goes in short following:

FC was indeed near to be downed at one point of the battle (lack of pilots and/or planes) and only the tactical changing of the Luftwaffes orders (to attack cities, not airfields anymore) save it from being extinguished.
That change was probably ingnited by a Ju88, that dropped its bombs accidentially over London, which was avenged by RAF bombing Berlin in (one of) the next night. Since then Hitler gaver order to attack cities to counter that terror with terror.

I bet its wrong in detail, but what about it in the general layout?

[DD_crash]

Correct as far as I know but the BIG mistake that the Luftwaffe made was not hitting the radar as they didnt know how important Chain Home was By the way this thread is not like the one that Odin made on the Ubizoo. He was very disappointed Britain wasnt invaded and conquered.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by DD_crash

...He was very disappointed Britain wasnt invaded and conquered.

Who is not?




LOL, just kidding!

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

I have a version of history, that I would like to simply throw into the room here, not knowing if its same kind of propaganda like above or not. It was however teached to me by a medium (I don't know, which, TV or books) and although I never bet much on it, it has influenced my thinking and so I'd still like to see it discussed.

That version goes in short following:

FC was indeed near to be downed at one point of the battle (lack of pilots and/or planes) and only the tactical changing of the Luftwaffes orders (to attack cities, not airfields anymore) save it from being extinguished.
That change was probably ingnited by a Ju88, that dropped its bombs accidentially over London, which was avenged by RAF bombing Berlin in (one of) the next night. Since then Hitler gaver order to attack cities to counter that terror with terror.

I bet its wrong in detail, but what about it in the general layout?

Maybe had something to do with the day when all British reserves were committed. Perhaps that day the LW had sent all theirs too? One more raid would have gone through untouched and the limit of resistance would have been seen.

Best luck for the British was that the German Leader was no good at being Mr. Cool and Collected.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Now that is some pathetic sheet! Pure postwar-propaganda.
Sometimes I'm pretty glad, that I am living in the 'land that lost'.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed. The German onslaught in Western Europe was brought to a halt for the first time.

The following year Hitler led the German nation against Russia and the rest is history..........

I'd be very interested in hearing how this period of history is taught in German schools these days.

[Crumpp]

They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed.

If their logistical system was different and they did not tie the airframe to the unit, it would have overcome much of the attrition problems.

They still had pilot shortages but they also never took the emergency measures that England did to fill those shortages. The Luftwaffe fought the campaign with the same pilot pool that started the war.

Dowding with much foresight was shoving anyone who could fly into a fighter cockpit during the battle.

The Luftwaffe was the winner on a tactical level and suffered a lower attrition rate because of it.

Warfare is filled with such examples of forces winning the tactical fight on the battlefield but not achieving a strategic victory. What matters ultimately England was not invaded by the Germans. The Allies are the clear winner in the Battle of Britain.

It would IMHO have been at least another month for things to become impossible if the bases had been continually bombed (though they were becoming uncomfortable at the time Hitler switched), and even that is by no means a certainty. By a couple of months, the autumn weather would have been too rough for the crossing.

I agree with your assessment. Galland points out that plans for the invasion were not considered serious by the officers of the German Military.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

It certainly reads as post-war propaganda and offers a very myopic view that does not accurately reflect the facts.

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge

No they did not give the RAF the edge. They simply put the aircraft on par. this made things more difficult for the Luftwaffe but it not factual to say the Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle by defeating the Bf-109.

The facts say the tactical battle was a loss for the Hurricane and Spitfire.



The Strategic battle was won by the RAF for a number of reasons.

The RAF had the best interception and control procedures in the world. They had more SE fighters and maintained a much higher sortie rate. This was backed up by a brilliant logistical system that allowed their units to maintain very high operational readiness states.



Individual aircraft performance had nothing to do with it at all. The performance margins simply are not large enough.

[arthursmedley]

Crump, before we get into an argument over semantics this is a school work-sheet for, I would presume, nine to eleven year olds. It is not "propaganda", it is factual.

Kids in this age range are taught a basic factual time line. The Spitfire and the Hurricane did give the RAF the edge in the battle. I would imagine the outcome rather different if the RAF had been flying Gladiators. The worksheet nowhere says these planes defeated the '109. It is about the tools the RAF had been newly equipped with.

You are correct that a number of other factors came into play however the carriculum can't cram everything in and for this age range should'nt either. Note how it says "historians are interested". At this age the idea is to equip the kids with the tools they'll need further on in their school career.

I find the use of the word "propaganda" in this thread interesting too. Not something we British need to use too often as we're very rarely subjected to it.