Author Topic: The Navy (RN) Won the Battle of Britian...Discuss (Read 1930 times)

Masherbrum · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2006, 09:48:55 AM »

The RAF wouldn't have faired as well WITHOUT the Polish Squadrons, but I'm glad they're still remembered by the British. It makes them proud to have shot down more German fighters than any other squadrons in the RAF.

Noone "wins" in war. Ask those who fought in one, they'll agree.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2006, 07:50:15 PM »

Quote

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.

Is the ferry doing 2-3 kts? Crap, that is slower that what the tide runs at.

Read the link.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2006, 07:59:13 PM »

Without the RAF Stukas would have sunk everything the RN could have put into the channel.

Squire · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2006, 11:47:14 PM »

Some historians like to come up with nonsense like that so it can pass as "original thinking".

"Gee, look at me, im the 1st one to think of it"....

Seen it before.

#1 The Royal Navy could not effectively oppose an invasion without air cover.

#2 The RN could not oppose an airborne assault (paras and landing forces) on southern Britain, or their resupply.

The presence of the RN certainly cannot be dismissed, it would not have been an easy task for the Germans to resupply their follow on forces, but the authors overstate their case. I will say that without a RN Britain would have been doomed, and it did its part, as other branches of the military did as well.

Next topic...

Pongo · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2006, 02:29:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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

Amazing that you cant see that planning for the SEA BORN invasion of Britian involves the force levels and capabilities of the royal navy.
For the RAF to say they beat the luftwaffe is correct, to say they single handlely saved england is silly. The germans where defeated by failing to establish air superiority as a pre condition for a seaborn invasion against a numerically vastly supperior force of Royal Navy ships.
If the Battle of Britian was "won" by the Germans abandoning the invasion, it was won by the fighting of the RAF and the presence of the Royal Navy.

"All that stood between England and destruction were the valiant few of fighter command.."
and the valiant many of the Royal Navy.
I know its complex.

Shuckins · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2006, 06:00:54 AM »

It's not really that complex. It takes years to build a warship, but only a few days to build an aircraft. A series of engagements in the channel would have inflicted serious losses on the Royal Navy which would not be easily replaced.

Any losses suffered by the Germans could be replaced relatively quickly. In a sustained struggle, with no RAF to provide cover, the Royal Navy would have become so degraded that it would have been unable to effectively oppose a German landing.

A degraded RN would also have been unable to adequately protect its Atlantic convoys. The U-boat wolf packs would have had a field day. With the British Army bereft of arms and heavy equipment after Dunkirk, it would have found it almost impossible to counter a landing by a well-equipped and confident Wehrmacht.

Angus · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2006, 06:19:48 AM »

Again one must also remember, that WITH the RAF, the RN already had problems in the channel at daytime.
Think of it WITHOUT the RAF.

Dunquerque was a lesson for that, - and despite the fact that many on the ground and at sea complained about the absense of the RAF, - the RAF was doing quite a job.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2006, 06:57:02 AM »

I love the mythtical capabilities that some give to the LW.

Of the 39 RN destroyers that participated in the Dunquerque evacuation, only 4 were lost. Yes destroyers dead in the water loading troops in crowded conditions, not at some 30+ knt on open water.

Actually Shuckins, the LW had a hard time making up for losses. This can be seen in LW OoB which show a decrease in a/c available for use in BoB.

on Aug 10 > 1482 bombers but on Sept 7 only 1291. The servicable numbers were 1008 and 798.

on Aug 10 > 976 fighters (109s) but on Sept 7 only 831. The servicable numbers were 853 and 658.

Nilsen · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2006, 07:06:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
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.

And some belive that airpower alone can win wars.. That is a "new" way of thinking that is equally false.

Furball · « **Reply #54 on:** August 28, 2006, 07:25:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
And some belive that airpower alone can win wars.. That is a "new" way of thinking that is equally false.

everyone knows it is ninjas that win wars.

Nilsen · « **Reply #55 on:** August 28, 2006, 07:40:34 AM »

obviously Furby

Angus · « **Reply #56 on:** August 28, 2006, 08:07:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
I love the mythtical capabilities that some give to the LW.

Of the 39 RN destroyers that participated in the Dunquerque evacuation, only 4 were lost. Yes destroyers dead in the water loading troops in crowded conditions, not at some 30+ knt on open water.

Actually Shuckins, the LW had a hard time making up for losses. This can be seen in LW OoB which show a decrease in a/c available for use in BoB.

on Aug 10 > 1482 bombers but on Sept 7 only 1291. The servicable numbers were 1008 and 798.

on Aug 10 > 976 fighters (109s) but on Sept 7 only 831. The servicable numbers were 853 and 658.

Yeah they bled hard. And at Dunquerque the RAF really had a tough fight but it was normally inland interceptions, where they tried to get to the LW before the bombers/stukas got to the ships.
Therefore, they were not so visible over Dunquerque, and after that fight, the boys in blue often got booed at by navy guys!

As to "airpower alone", it has proven itself crucial in winning a war. No airpower, no likely victory.
A good example of well manipulated airpower as a good part of victories is the LW in the Blitzkrieg. But airpower got stopped by airpower....

Nilsen · « **Reply #57 on:** August 28, 2006, 08:08:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

As to "airpower alone", it has proven itself crucial in winning a war. No airpower, no likely victory.
A good example of well manipulated airpower as a good part of victories is the LW in the Blitzkrieg. But airpower got stopped by airpower....

Still.. airpower alone cant win wars. You need folks on the ground to take and secure it.

Edbert1 · « **Reply #58 on:** August 28, 2006, 09:06:39 AM »

So when we do the AH-BoB-2006 scenario in the next few months I guess it will be LW versus RN?

JK...continue

Shuckins · « **Reply #59 on:** August 28, 2006, 04:55:22 PM »

Here are a few facts about Royal Navy losses during World War II.

These prove that the Luftwaffe's capabilities were far from mythical. Pay close attention to the losses in the years 1939-1942, and to the losses by theater.

The Royal Navy lost heavily in the Mediterranean, and the majority of those losses were due to Luftwaffe aircraft flying out of France and Italy. Had that trend in the Mediterranean continued, the losses would have been unsustainable.

Now, imagine the level of the losses that would have occurred in the narrow waters of the English Channel, especially in 1941 and 1942 when anti-aircraft installations on British were woefully inadequate. Little cover for the ships of the Royal Navy could have been provided by their aircraft carriers, for they would undoubtedly have been kept out of that fray because of their vulnerability and lack of suitable high-performance aircraft at that early stage of the war.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN29-WarshiplossesBritish.htm