The Navy (RN) Won the Battle of Britian...Discuss

[Nilsen]

One thing is almost sertain.

If the Royals didnt have a navy, the germans would have invaded without having to wait for the Lufties to wack their airforce.

[Angus]

Almost certain....yes.
And yet, back to the point that the lufties actually forced naval ops in the channel into the cover of darkness.....

[Angus]

Originally posted by Furball
depends where they are going from, the Channel isnt very far across (21 miles at closest point).

can get a ferry dover/calais, some do it in about an hour.

And half an hour with the train

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Angus
Almost certain....yes.
And yet, back to the point that the lufties actually forced naval ops in the channel into the cover of darkness.....

Why do you hate the navy so much?

You are an anti-navy guy.

You are an airforce supporter.

Shame on you.

[Angus]

Tuhh, I am ABOVE that

[Bluefish]

The article mentions something I'd never heard before, that the Luftwaffe did not possess armor-piercing bombs.  Does anybody have any further info on that?

[Jebus]

Originally posted by SteffK
I can agree that they had an impact on the outcome due to thier presence, but to say they actually won is complete RolloX!!!

How the Navy (RN) Won the Battle of Britian...Discuss

HEY STEFFK    < \V/,,>

[Pongo]

The article is completly correct.
Without air supperiority(but with air support still of course) the royal navy would have eradicated any invasion attempt of england.
Had the luftwaffe destroyed the RAF utterly and then used that total supperiority to raid all harbours until the royal navy was gone then sure, if that is even possible.
But air supperiorty in the channel for some limited time would have been utterly useless to the germans.
The royal navy would have kicked what was left of thier tulips after Norway.
Air supperiority was a major condition not the only condition for a successful invasion of England.
Germany could meet none of the the conditions. When Churchill convinced the brits to fight, the island was safe.
They had spent the majority of their defence budgets making sure it was.

[Badboy]

Just to clarify,

The article is incorrect because the claim being made is that the RN did win the Battle of Britain, not that they would have. The simple fact is that the RN were effectively non participants. What they could have, or would have done is a moot point. That the RAF did win is a matter of fact that has remained unchallenged by sensible historians since the event.

It appears that these absurd claims have only now been made in an attempt to boost magazine sales. While it may have increased sales it has done absolutely nothing for the credibility and reputations of the author, the historians involved, or the magazine. Indeed, they couldn't have done a better job of damaging their credibility and increasing their notoriety if they had claimed that Winston Churchill was gay.

It just proves once more that some people will say almost anything to make money and boost sales.

Badboy

[Angus]

Originally posted by Pongo
The article is completly correct.
Without air supperiority(but with air support still of course) the royal navy would have eradicated any invasion attempt of england.
Had the luftwaffe destroyed the RAF utterly and then used that total supperiority to raid all harbours until the royal navy was gone then sure, if that is even possible.
But air supperiorty in the channel for some limited time would have been utterly useless to the germans.
The royal navy would have kicked what was left of thier tulips after Norway.
Air supperiority was a major condition not the only condition for a successful invasion of England.
Germany could meet none of the the conditions. When Churchill convinced the brits to fight, the island was safe.
They had spent the majority of their defence budgets making sure it was.

[Angus]

What Badboy said was rather good IMHO.
It's a moot point, and does it even mention the algorythm of throwing in the Kriegsmarine?
Or 1941?

I tend to think that without the RAF the UK would have been into serious trouble.

[rogerdee]

nobody won in the Battle of Britain  

people died and people lived and luck and bad decisions helped.

 the only winners were the ones  who were left alive  after the fighting.

[Angus]

Originally posted by rogerdee
nobody won in the Battle of Britain  

people died and people lived and luck and bad decisions helped.

 the only winners were the ones  who were left alive  after the fighting.

No.
The Brits won.
Germany abandoned their invasion plan, the LW had to go from daylight bombing into the night, and the LW losses were heavy.
I think that qualifies.

[Furball]

Originally posted by SteffK
I can agree that they had an impact on the outcome due to thier presence, but to say they actually won is complete RolloX!!!

How the Navy (RN) Won the Battle of Britian...Discuss

Steff....

You are British...

Yet you spell Britain Britian...

Someone get the fire going, ill get the stake.

[Shuckins]

If the Royal Navy would have crushed Sealion regardless of what happened in the skies over the channel, then the German aerial armadas launched against Britain had no specific purpose.

Every historian worth his salt has correctly portrayed the Battle of Britain as the prelude to invasion.  How long would the Royal Navy have lasted in the narrow waters of the channel with 2,000 German bombers overhead and fleets of U-boats attacking the British merchant marine.  In all probability the British naval bases in the home islands would have become untenable, and much of the fleet would have had to withdraw to Canada or elsewhere to avoid its destruction.

The arguments being presented here in favor of the Royal Navy winning the Battle of Britain sound as if they came from one of the old "Battleship Admirals" who believed, prior to the start of the war, that a capital ship operating in open waters could not be sunk by aircraft.

Some notions die hard, don't they.