Spitfire IX overmodeled??

[F4UDOA]

Crummp,

Remember the shift was from the British airfields to the cities. It doesn't mean the air engagements ended. The battle in the sky persisted. The difference was the ground losses were much less.

The reason the Luftwaffe lost the BoB was because they overclaimed kills dramatically causing the high command into thinking the Brits were down to their last aircraft and up came multiple squadrons. This was caused by pressure from above in the Nazi regime.

Point being if the Germans had an aircraft that could have stayed over the battlefield like the A6M2 for more time they could have done more to wear the Brits down.

Because of this the Germans lost much of the advantage in pilot quality to the depths of the Channel.

[Batz]

Your version of history is laughable.

They lost the BoB because they over claimed.

I guess if they only had been more honest with the paper work they would have won, eh?

You got to be kidding me.......lol

[Pongo]

The reason they lost the battle of britain is because they could not have won it unless the Brits gave up. With Radar and relitivly equeal planes and the home field advantage the germans had no chance to defeat the RAF. I think there was only one week in the whole event that the Brits lost more planes then they made. Modern war in the absense of a moral collaps is a battle of attrition. The Germans had become used to thier enemies collapsing.  
I think FFUDOA is thinking of the battle for Guadicanal. Where the over claiming by the Japanese was definatly pivotal in thier inability to apply enought force to get the job done.

The Germans gave it everything they had in the Battle of Britain. And the Brits stoped them with half of what they had.

[Nashwan]

Overclaiming was one of the reasons they lost. It convinced Luftwaffe intelligence that the RAF were down to very few operational fighters.

The Jagdwaffe alone claimed nearly 2,000 single engined fighters during the battle, out of a total of around 900 actually lost to all causes, including bomber defensive fire.

LW came with in days of winning the battle in spite of ultra/rader by attacking the airfields and grinding the RAF down.

The Luftwaffe certainly managed to "grind the RAF down", but at no point during the Battle did they do so at a faster rate than the RAF was inflicting on them.

More pilots were being killed than the RAF could hope to replace.

This is true for only 2 weeks of the battle, but the Luftwaffe were losing pilots faster than they could be replaced throughout the battle.

As of 29th June 1940, the 109 force was supposed to have a strength of 1171 pilots, but actualy had 1126 available, and 906 of those were fit for duty.

By the 28th September, established strength had fallen to 1132 pilots, but only 917 were available, and only 676 were fit for duty.

In contrast, RAF pilot strength grew throughout the battle, reaching over 1400 by late September 1940. The RAF has a list of pilots who fought during the battle, and those who were killed. Just over 500 were killed, but around 2800 actually flew at least 1 operational sortie with a fighter squadron during the BoB.

Their replacement pool came within just a few days of being completely empty.

Even if the RAF had no replacements available, and they did, they were still in a better position than the Luftwaffe. RAF pilot casualties (killed wounded and captured) were similar, or less, than Luftwaffe fighter pilot casualties. (The Luftwaffe of course losing far more as prisoners than the RAF).

Now, which do you think is going to break first, the force with 1400 pilots and 1000+ fighters, or the force with less than 900 pilots and planes? Especially considering that the smaller force was training pilots and building planes at a slower rate.

Only when Hitler ordered the LW to shift to trying to bomb London into submission did the RAF turn the situation around.

The Luftwaffe were pressuring the RAF with a very high sortie rate and attacks on airfields. They began those tactics in the last week of August, when they flew nearly 4000 fighter sorties. But they couldn't sustain it, flying only 3200 sorties in the first week of September, then dropping to only 1400 in the second week of September.

That sortie rate should tell you the strain the Luftwaffe were under. To fly 4000 sorties in a week with 675 pilots means each pilot flying 6 times in a week, and much longer sorties than the RAF flew. Little wonder they couldn't sustain it more than 2 weeks.

The British new they were in a fight for their survival and conducted themselves accordingly. Had the LW continued to bomb airfields and aircraft factories England would have been forced to capitulate.

Luftwaffe bombing of aircraft factories was so effective that of the planned 3,602 Spits and Hurris that were supposed to be produced in 1940, 4,283 were actually produced.

[Crumpp]

It's a fact that Dowding was planning on reporting to Churchill that the BoB was lost since the RAF couldn't sustain the losses.  By attacking the airfields the LW gave the RAF no wiggle room to rest/refit their planes and pilots.  Pilots either took off and intercepted the raid or stayed on the ground to be bombed.  Same with planes.  By changing to attacking the cities the pilots could return to their fields and rest.  


Overclaiming kills didn't lose the LW the BoB.  In fact the RLM had one of the more stringent comfirmation processes in WWII.  Sure they overclaimed but of all the allies the RAF was probably the worst at overclaiming on the Western front.  Course I think it would be hard to beat the USAAF 8th Bomber Group Gunners.  During Schweinfurt they claimed more German fighters shot down that even participated in the battle.  For Morale purposes most of the claims were allowed to stand.  In fact less than 10 German planes were damaged from B17 gunners.

The Luftwaffe under estimated the strength of the RAF single engine day fighters.  The LW intelligence folks also didn't account for damaged/repaired A/C or the fact that pilots were often shot down but returned to fight within a few hours.  These led to the "last spitfire" perception.  

  Same thing the US did in Vietnam.  The Tet offensive broke the back of the VC movement in the South and forced the NVA to get involved in the fight.  A major military defeat which N. Vietnam was able to turn into a strategic victory all due to the American publics perception of how the war was going.  "Light at the end of the Tunnel"  syndrome.

Crumpp

[Batz]

The Luftwaffe had many problems going into the BoB. It was not designed for a strategic bombing campaign but as a close support weapon to move forward in support of ground troops.

At the beginning of the BoB the 109's main task was to engage the British fighters and shoot them down while making use of its advantages. When it became clear the 110 was incapable to fill the roll as a long range escort fighter the 109 had to fill that roll and could not fully utilize its advantages. The 109 loss rates escalated. Also, the 109 had limited range with only 20min actual combat time over Britain. At the start of the BoB the LW tried to draw out the RAF over the channel by attacking shipping but it wasn’t successful.

The 110 as a long-range escort fighter proved inadequate during the Battle of Britain. The 110 was a decent fighter when able to operate to its strength. Locked to bombers it ended up needing its own escort. If the RAF would have had 110s or something similar the BoB would have been over before it began.

LW bombers were also inadequate for the task.

LW fighter pilots were also being depleted and there was no change in the lengthy training periods to replace pilots.

Then there are the other difficulties such as inadequate local facilities to repair damaged aircraft. This forced the LW to send aircraft back to Germany for repair. The Luftwaffe had very little reserves throughout the battle and had not fully mobilized its industry to meet demand. The LW had no method of plotting the positions of RAF aircraft and it had no means of ground to air control. The RAF radar and ULTRA allowed time for the RAF to prepare and react.

In all, the RAF lost 1,173 planes and 510 pilots and gunners during the Battle of Britain. The LW lost 1,733 planes and 3,368 killed or captured. (These numbers vary with the source.) The problems of “over claiming” had more of an effect on the morale of LW then on deciding who won or lost. The reality was even if the Germans were 100% accurate with their claims they could not know how many aircraft and RAF airmen they killed.

While fighting over enemy territory planes that may have been considered actually “shoot downs” anywhere else could ditch and be recovered, repaired and sent back into battle. Pilots who bailed or ditched could be back in the air the same day. It’s just silly to claim that the LW lost the battle of Britain because of “over claiming”.

There’s a lot that has been written about how close the LW came to “winning” the BoB. Even if the LW had “won” the Germans would have had a tough time invading and conquering Britain. Some say 'Seelowe' was nothing but a bluff.

[HoHun]

Hi Crumpp,

>The Decisive factor in the Battle of Britain was a German lack of strategic focus.  

That's the popularly accepted history :-)

However, in my opinion the truth is that the Battle of Britain was a fully strategic air war that was meant to make Britain collapse without an invasion.

Accordingly, when the Luftwaffe began bombing London, this wasn't a shift in strategic focus. It actually was the logical progression of the strategic air war after the RAF was believed to be worn down enough for the Luftwaffe to mount a raid for their real objective.

The Germans were confident that they could wear down the RAF so that the combined threat of the Luftwaffe razing London and the Wehrmacht landing on the British channel coast would force the British to sue for peace.

Hitler didn't want to invade Britain, what he really wanted was an invasion of the Soviet Union. His invasion threat was an instrument to attack the British will to fight, and the Luftwaffe actions were aimed at bombing the British out of the war without an invasion.

Not only did the RAF achieve an operative victory over the Luftwaffe, but the British nation as a whole achieved a strategical victory over the German war machine that was waging history's first pure strategic air war according to the 1930s' air power theories against them.

In my opinion, popular interpretation of the Battle of Britain fails to realize how great the British victory really was. European politics of the late 1930s had been dominated by international fear of the powerful Luftwaffe that could destroy every enemy's capital within a few days, and this fear had allowed Germany to occupy one country after the other.

According to what everyone believed in the 1930s,  Britain would just have had to collapses when the Luftwaffe began to mount large-scale raids on London from bases in nearby France. Undoubtly, the German leadership who had successfully employed the Luftwaffe threat for so many years were expecting just that.

That the British determination to fight hardly suffered from the heavy Luftwaffe attacks had to be considered a miracle by what everyone at that time thought to know about air power.

I don't see think there were any crippling blunders in the way the Luftwaffe ran their campaign - the decisive error was to believe that the British would allow themselves to be defeated from the air alone.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

Gosh some of you guys make war sound so mathmatical.  Wonder how many of you have fought one?  Ever been in a big battle?  No, not just showed up and banged on a typewriter in the rear, I mean closed with and destroyed another group of human beings who were bent on destroying you.  Technology is nice and I'll take that A10 circling overhead anyday.  But it is the individuals willingness to go up the mountain and crawl into a cave to shoot his enemy in the face that wins the fight.  Heart without technology is better than all the technology in the world without the Heart, when it comes to warfare.  Ask any infantryman.  

Let's examine some wars....


Israeli Six day war - Why did Israel win??  The Arabs outnumbered them and had comparable equipment.

Vietnam War - Why did the US lose?  We had the technology...radar/missles/jets vs a man with a rifle.  Should have cleaned house.

Why did the Brits win Malaysia?  It was primarily fought with a few SAS...

Why did the US win El Salvador?  Again it was fought with a handfull of SOF forces on the sly...

Why did the Russian's lose Afghanistan?

Why would a fanatic with little to no technology attack the most technologically advance Military on the Planet on September 11th?
Cause he thinks we don't have the heart to fight him.  Lots of technology but weak soft centers.  Look at the message that was sent by our politicians after the Mog!!


Again....

It is a FACT Dowding was planning on reporting to Churchhill to start exploring the Diplomatic avenues cause the RAF would collapse IF the LW campaign against the airfields continued.  A day or so before he was to report the LW changed strateagy.

Just like Ambrose says: "Hitler thought the western democracies were soft.  The sons of Facism could beat the sons of democracy."

The Brits had the heart not to be conquered and the Germans didn't have the heart to conquer them.  It wasn't planes, trains, or automobiles that won the fight, it was men.
Crumpp

[VWE]

Do any of you long winded twits have jobs? Sheesh... some long rants about something that is neither here nor there.

[Crumpp]

I sort of agree with you HoHun.  It is obvious that a serious attack on England was not something the Germans considered when they began the French campaign.  Even if they had won air superiority it would have been very difficult for the Germans to cross the channel in any real strength.  Especially after letting the BEF go at Dunkirk.  

The East was always on Hitler's agenda.  This is spelled out in "Mein Kampf".  It's my opinion that the German powers that be in 1940 didn't expect to win so suddenly and when it did happen sort of floundered around allowing the allies to gain the strategic intiative.  Read an interesting article in WWII History Magazine about the plans for the Invasion of France falling into French hands just weeks before it was to commence.  The led Hitler to scrap the plan which was pretty much the same as they used in WWI (attacking through Belgium).  The outcome was the flanking manuver through the Argonne Forest which won them France.  

The article goes on to address Dunkirk.  Some people think that Hitler didn't want to completely destroy the British as a jesture towards peace.  Some think It was because of Goerings assurance the Luftwaffe would do it from the air.  
I tend to agree with the camp that thinks that Hitler didn't want to commit the Panzers and leave their flanks exposed to the bulk of the French Forces still intact in the South of France.  They didn't have all of the French units accounted for and he played it safe rather than committing to a fight in which a powerful enemy force could suddenly appear in your rear area.  Of Course the tactical commanders were pissed that they were halted with sight of the shattered BEF.  
Crumpp

[Nashwan]

It is a FACT Dowding was planning on reporting to Churchhill to start exploring the Diplomatic avenues cause the RAF would collapse IF the LW campaign against the airfields continued.

What is the source for this? I've never seen it suggested Dowding was ready to throw in the towel.

Dowding was certainly worried by this point, but don't forget he only had a complete picture of his own forces. Whilst the Germans had underestimated RAF strength, the British had vastly overestimated German strength.

Britain believed Germany was on track to produce 24,400 aircraft in 1940, and started the battle with a frontline strength of 5,800 aircraft. Actual German production was 10,250 aircraft in 1940, and front line strength was 3000.

Dowding knew his own strength exactly, but believed the Luftwaffe to be twice as strong as it actually was.

[Pongo]

Park may have told Churchill that the reserves where gone on September 15th. But that is not true.
There are some very simple numbers to show what happend to the Germans over England.
Single engine fighters is interesting.
July1 1940 LW 725 RAF 591
Oct 1 1940 LW 275 RAF 734

no real mystery there. A defender with simiular equipment and a 3 to 1 superiority and the home field advantage.

The RAF never had fewer then 2 trained fighter pilots available for each of those planes either.

Britain made 15000 aircraft in 1940 and the Germans 10000 or so.

"The Brits had the heart not to be conquered and the Germans didn't have the heart to conquer them. It wasn't planes, trains, or automobiles that won the fight, it was men. "

interesting statement. The Brits had the heart to withstand the germans attempt and the Germans lacked the military capability to force the issue. You cannot attribute it just to the mystical will of the British. You must recognise the incabablilty of the Germans to win the battle. Its not a heart thing. Both sides went at it to the best of thier abilities(with tactical mistakes on both sides) and the stronger side won.
Switching to cities from airfields only blurs the issue. With the relative capabilities of the two forces the RAF was defensivly supperior to the LW. So they won.  The opposite was true of RAF offensive capabilities vs the Channel front for the following 3 years. Until the USAAF arrived with the capability and will to force the issue.

[Crumpp]

I disagree.  In any battle both sides feel they are about to lose.  You only get to see your 25 yards of war.

It is very arguable whether or not the LW had the capability to win Air Superiority over England in 1940.  I believe they could have done it.  That is the view of many Historians too.

Crumpp

[Pongo]

It makes good drama I suppose. But the truth is pretty simple. If Churchill(the primary author of the history of WW2) had recorded it the simple way, it would have remained simple. But he didnt. He recorded it as a test of will and chance and destiny.  The facts are pretty simple though.  The LW would have had to create a 3-4 to 1 kill to death ratio to win that battle and there was nothing in thier previos engangments vs the RAF to indicate that was possible. With the defensive advantage of recovered pilots and aircraft it infact became impossible.

And comparing the RAF in the Battle of Britian to El Salvadoran death squads is in bad taste.

[MiloMorai]

Day by day report of BoB

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html

among other info.