Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SteffK on August 24, 2006, 07:03:55 AM
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml)
-
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few," said Winston Churchill in praise of the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain. But as the 66th anniversary of the firefight in the skies approaches, some of the country's top military historians have claimed it was the Royal Navy rather than the RAF that saved Britain from invasion by the Germans in the autumn of 1940.
The three military historians who run the high command course at the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham, near Swindon, have concluded that the Battle of Britain became an overblown myth and that the credit for keeping Hitler at bay should have gone to the navy.
In an article published in the journal History Today, headlined Pie in the Sky, Andrew Gordon, head of maritime history at the college, said: "It really is time to put away this enduring myth. To claim that Germany failed to invade in 1940 because of what was done by phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command is hogwash. The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet."
But Bill Bond, founder of the Battle of Britain Historical Society, said: "There's always somebody trying to rewrite this historical period. Most of it's nonsense. Without air cover the Luftwaffe bombers would have smashed all the ports. The divebombers would have just blasted navy ships out of the water. Unopposed, the Luftwaffe could have done what it liked. To suggest that the Battle of Britain is a myth is nonsense."
Taken from here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,1856984,00.html)
You can also hire these historians for private functions, I hear they do a great Marx brothers skit.
-
And next up.
Historians reveal that Martin Luther King was really a KKK Plant designed to encite such a great reaction to the uppity negrosin the white community that it would cause the start of a second civil war :rolleyes:
Dont they know its standard perating procedure to wait a minimum of 100 years and after everyone from that time period is dead for revisionist history.
-
If the "Battle Of Britain" means the air-war then it is clear that the RAF did not win it as much as the Luftwaffe (HG) lost it.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
If the "Battle Of Britain" means the air-war then it is clear that the RAF did not win it as much as the Luftwaffe (HG) lost it.
On that I agree.
The Luftwaffes swich to bombing cities instead of the airfealds probably did far more to loose it for them then anything
-
Sounds like sour grapes (should be a fine whine by now due to age).
Other than not having the ships for an invasion, the RAF was the key factor. What does that guy think...that if the RAF was defeated, a navy without air cover would have held off the germans? I think we know how that type of battle pans out.
If the RAF had failed, and Germany gained control of the skies, the RN would have eventually ceased to exist, its fuels depleted, and invasion would have been imminent.
Im just an amateur historian, but I think this guy's dad was old navy, and he grew up in a household full of contempt toward the RAF.
-
Hey, as in football, a win is a win is a win, no matter how ugly or unlikely.
-
The ships were fast to manuver and "pretty safe from air attack" -- my arse!
-
BoB was won by the RAF. The LW did not gain significant airsuperiority over SE England.
Its generally accepted that Operation Sea Lion (German invasion via cross channel flotilla) would have been smashed by the British Navy of the time in any event.
This was the German navies opinion at the time............
In 40 the British Navy was purportedly the biggest in the World.................
Sea Lion never happened. Was that because BoB was an RAF victory? Was that because the German Navy knew that a British fleet many times its size would crush it? Both?
well the question was who won the BoB.................... not who caused the cancelation of sealion
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Hey, as in football, a win is a win is a win, no matter how ugly or unlikely.
Maybe in American football. But maybe thats how it works in soccer, I don't know though. I could ask some chicks around here, they are the only ones I know who played soccer. :D
-
Apparently these 'historians' never heeded the lessons of Midway and when the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk. The RN would have had to sail into the channel to sink the invasion fleet. Right within range of the Luftwaffe bombers and Stukas. Even with RAF air cover it would have been a massacre. The RAF in the Battle of Britain were unable to defend their own airfields but at least you can fill craters. When a ship is sunk it's sunk.
If the RAF was defeated there would have been nothing to stop the Luftwaffe from sinking the RN's capital fleet in the channel.
What is true is that Hitler feared the RN. What he didn't realise was that day of the capital ship was over and airpower would decide naval battle from now on.
-
How can this still be confusing ?
Oh, well it could but it's still clear.
THIS:
RN and RAF could not have saved Britain withot each other. But it was the RAF who did the fighting before it ever hit the RN as it was supposed to.
RAF held the umbrella for the RN who was then the only stopper for the invasion fleet.
So, in short, the fight never got past RAF.
the German boxer never punched the RAF boxer properly, swung some at the British cheering crowd with some success, then left the ring with a broken nose and little air. The RN was still on the bench...
-
Navy is always better than airforce. Anyone thinking any different are slow in the nugget.
GO NAVY! :aok
-
Oh ..GLUG GLUG GLUG
Anyway seriously, the RN really made it through lots of crap, and one must bear in mind the job they had!
BoB had them ready, but the fight was mostly 20K above them.
-
I'm no historian, but lemme say i find it easier to attack a field with a few cruisers protecting it than a horde of spitfires at 29,000ft.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
well the question was who won the BoB
Britain:aok
-
Originally posted by Tilt
BoB was won by the RAF. The LW did not gain significant airsuperiority over SE England.
Its generally accepted that Operation Sea Lion (German invasion via cross channel flotilla) would have been smashed by the British Navy of the time in any event.
This was the German navies opinion at the time............
In 40 the British Navy was purportedly the biggest in the World.................
Sea Lion never happened. Was that because BoB was an RAF victory? Was that because the German Navy knew that a British fleet many times its size would crush it? Both?
well the question was who won the BoB.................... not who caused the cancelation of sealion
Tilt, bear in mind the distances and the speed of events.
In the BoB it was summertime. Long daylight, and often good weather. Easy time for RN Destroyers to kill barges by the hundreds if they have the peace to do so.
The invasion would have commenced at night and contined over the daytime. For that it was necessary to keep the RN at bay on the bottom, or at least just busy defending themselves.
The RN was well scratched from Dunquerque, and busy all over the world so I'd think it's rather safe to assume that IF the Germans had launched an amphibious assault, they'd have had their hands full in the interception department.
Well, thanks to the RAF as well as other, - the British, - it never came as far as that.
BTW, a good example is 1941, when the German battleships went along the channel. ALONG the channel. The only scars they got were from aircraft I belive. Good to bear in mind to think of how fast this all could have happened.
For the Germans landing it would not as well have been a comforting thought to know that the enemy would have HUNDREDS of aircraft to strafe them (.303's do well against human flesh). Compare with D-Day when the Germans only mounted some guy called Priller and his Wingman on the beach landings!!!
Maybe just me though :eek:
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml)
This is a good book on BoB, "The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1854108018/sr=1-1/qid=1156450944/ref=sr_1_1/102-8250229-8394531?ie=UTF8&s=books). It explains how it was possible that "so few" were able to win the Battle of Britain.
If the Royal Navy was the reason...hehe...I guess they forget that they had to abandoned the Dover naval base and only run convoys through the Channel at night.
ack-ack
-
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!!!
A couple of points are worth making here regarding Thomas Harding's article. Firstly, it contains no new information. Even the military historians quoted are only re-iterating views held at the time and expressed, and published, on numerous occasions since. Operation sea lion was always in serious doubt, not only from the actions of the RAF and the Royal Navy, but from the elements. Even the Spanish failed to cross the treacherous waters of the channel unopposed in extremely sea worthy ships, the idea that the Germans could have succeed in barges, against strong opposition, has never been taken seriously, not even by the Germans.
However, even more import is that the logic of the arguments used in the article are flawed in a number of important ways, apparently for little other purpose than sensationalism. What are the flaws?
Firstly, you can't claim that a battle was won by non participants, just because they could have won if they had been called upon to do so. No doubt, the Royal Navy would have done us proud had they been required to break up an invasion, but the simple fact remains that they were not. Why not? Simply because they were not needed, the fighting was carried out by the RAF, and the battle was won before Royal Navy intervention was necessary. Nobody doubts they could have won it, clearly some believe they should have won, but they didn't. The RAF did.
Secondly, to agree on who won the Battle of Britain, one needs to be clear about the victory conditions. It has always been accepted that the Germans wanted to invade, and the Battle would be decided by the event and success of an invasion. Even that is in doubt, since some believe the invasion itself was an expensive bluff, intended to bring Churchill to peace negotiations so that Hitler would be free to invade Russia. However, if we accept that the invasion threat was genuine, there were two prerequisites, the first was air superiority, and the second was keeping the British fleet out of the channel. The Germans believed that if they could achieve air superiority, they could keep the Royal Navy out of the channel by the use of mines and dive bombing. Could they have done so? We will never know for sure, but it is true that shipping losses in the channel were so heavy that most merchant ships were taking the long way around, and only risking the channel in daylight with RAF escorts.
Even so, the Germans only had a chance if they could maintain air superiority. Also, the Germans knew the value of close air support, and even if they could cross the channel, they would not contemplate an invasion without it.
So everything rested on achieving air superiority. The important thing here is not if that were true, but that is what the Germans believed at the time. So Goring promised to achieve air superiority in time for the invasion to take place before the weather made a channel crossing impossible. So, in reality, victory did not depend on the event and success of an invasion at all, it depended on the Luftwaffe bringing the RAF to battle and depleting it to the point that it no longer presented a threat. This was the perception of the important players at the time, everything that Goring and Park did supports the idea that both sides believed that Victory or defeat rested entirely on air superiority, a battle that could only be fought and won in the air. That's where the battle took place, and the RAF won by virtue of the fact that they prevented the Luftwaffe from achieving air superiority and the resulting cancellation of the invasion. The indefinite postponement of operation Sea Lion marked the victory. The battle was over and the RAF had won it.
What the Royal Navy coulda, woulda, or shoulda done if something that never happened (an invasion) had happened, is a matter of pointless speculation and conjecture.
Badboy
-
Doesn't matter who won the battle of Britian, the United States won the war. Might be the last one we won, but to date it was the last "offical" war anyway.
-
Yeah dmf doesnt matter at all, just put bigger fuel tanks on B17's and P47's for the New York / Berlin flights.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Apparently these 'historians' never heeded the lessons of Midway and when the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk. The RN would have had to sail into the channel to sink the invasion fleet. Right within range of the Luftwaffe bombers and Stukas. Even with RAF air cover it would have been a massacre. The RAF in the Battle of Britain were unable to defend their own airfields but at least you can fill craters. When a ship is sunk it's sunk.
If the RAF was defeated there would have been nothing to stop the Luftwaffe from sinking the RN's capital fleet in the channel.
What is true is that Hitler feared the RN. What he didn't realise was that day of the capital ship was over and airpower would decide naval battle from now on.
How good was the LW at night bombing? The invasion force would be at sea from 12 to 24 hours. Could the LW have stopped the 50+ RN destoyers from making a banzai charge at 30+kts through the invasion fleet?
Would the RN have lost some ships? Yes, but most of the low freeboard barges would be fish housing on the seabed of the Channel with a plentiful supply of food at hand.
Worth reading, http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
-
Guys, much of the speculation in this thread is moot. Hitler did not have the means to land a force substantial enough to establish even a bridgehead much less supply them for a campaign of any length. His plan was to make England sue for peace, when they didn't he got desparate and invaded Russia, which was the end of the 3rd Reich.
DMF....:rofl
-
Wow, the troll to end all trolls.
The reason british airpower was able to win the battle was that certain rather smart folks in the early days pointed out that in the face of an air attack, the channel might just as well dry up. (actual words, Hugh Dowding I believe)
Britain relyed on that water in the past, that was why the navy was strong. But 30 miles of water to a german bomber was just a 10 minute wet spot. The RAF won that fight plain and simple.
What was the RN going to do about those bombers? Complain loudly?
-
I thought the Eagle Squadron was the reason the RAF won.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Doesn't matter who won the battle of Britian, the United States won the war. Might be the last one we won, but to date it was the last "offical" war anyway.
Ehm.. The allies won ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The Luftwaffes swich to bombing cities instead of the airfealds probably did far more to loose it for them then anything
So could you argue that Bomber Command won the Battle of Britain by bombing Berlin and provoking Hitler into a frothy mouthed rage screaming "raize their cities to the ground!"?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How good was the LW at night bombing? The invasion force would be at sea from 12 to 24 hours. Could the LW have stopped the 50+ RN destoyers from making a banzai charge at 30+kts through the invasion fleet?
Would the RN have lost some ships? Yes, but most of the low freeboard barges would be fish housing on the seabed of the Channel with a plentiful supply of food at hand.
Worth reading, http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
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.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Doesn't matter who won the battle of Britian, the United States won the war. Might be the last one we won, but to date it was the last "offical" war anyway.
yeah, dont forget WWI, you won that too!
-
Pearl Harbour wasn't a documentary rpm :p
"Hammer Down"...my a**e :D
-
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.
-
Almost certain....yes.
And yet, back to the point that the lufties actually forced naval ops in the channel into the cover of darkness.....
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
Tuhh, I am ABOVE that :D
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml)
HEY STEFFK < \V/,,>
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml)
Steff....
You are British...
Yet you spell Britain Britian...
Someone get the fire going, ill get the stake.
:mad:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Without the RAF Stukas would have sunk everything the RN could have put into the channel.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
obviously Furby
-
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....
-
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.
-
So when we do the AH-BoB-2006 scenario in the next few months I guess it will be LW versus RN?
JK...continue :D
-
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
-
Originally posted by Pongo
For the RAF to say they beat the luftwaffe is correct, to say they single handlely saved england is silly.
True, the RAF didn't save England single handedly, they were helped by their ground crew, the observer corp, by hundreds of anti aircraft crew, by the people who raised and lowered the barrage balloons, by the controllers and plotters, the fire service, the doctors and nurses who treated the wounded, and many many more. They were also helped by the Royal Navy, who made it possible for the convoys to get through with vital supplies and raw materials for aircraft production.
However, when a battle is won, credit generally goes to those who did the fighting, not to those who provided support, or to those who merely escorted the materials used to make the weapons and ammunition.
If the Battle of Britain was "won" by the Germans abandoning the invasion, it was won by the fighting of the RAF and the presence of the Royal Navy.
Nope, you can't say that, anymore than you can include the presence of the Home Guard. Neither the Home Guard or the Royal Navy were significantly involved, and nobody can be certain how either would have performed if an invasion had taken place. In fact, the Home Guard were probably more involved in the Battle than the Royal Navy, at least in a more direct capacity.
What you can be certain of, is that the Home Guard and the Royal Navy did not participate directly in the battle as combatants, because the battle was fought in the air, so neither of them can be given credit for the victory. The credit goes to those of the RAF who fought during the battle.
To summarise:
The RAF won the Battle.
The Royal Navy did not, they were little more than spectators.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
So when we do the AH-BoB-2006 scenario in the next few months I guess it will be LW versus RN?
JK...continue :D
Yep, whatever the outcome of the scenario, the allies can claim afterwards that the Royal Navy won :rofl :rofl
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Still.. airpower alone cant win wars. You need folks on the ground to take and secure it.
Nilsen, when you have an airpowered pond to cross, you need airpower ;)
So no airpower, no victory.
Same the other way around.
So, for the Germans it was very clear, - without control of the skies, no invasion.
And Badboy, of course the presence of the Navy was crucial. With none to little RN (say the size of the kriegsmarine in the area), the invasion would have been worth to look at. Would RAF have stopped the Kriegsmarine as an escort? They couldn't stop Scarnhorst & Gneisenau a year later.
-
See rule #5
-
See rule #5
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes.. but If the Germans attacked with airpower alone they could not occupy the nation using only planes. They need troops on the ground and ships on the waters. The teapots would not run around on their fields with white flags and surrender to the LW. ;)
How did they capture Crete?
Yes I know it was at a bloody cost, and they wouldn't have caught the UK in the same way, but you could consider it as a good foothold though.
BTW, the "dad" of the German Paras, Student, was hospitalied (I belive) during the BoB. He got shot in the head by the SS!!!!!
(May 1940)
-
It was never the German's intent to try to occupy Britain with only planes.
First they would seize control of the Channel....possibly faking the launch of the invasion to draw the RN into those narrow waters. The resulting battle would have been a bloodbath for the Royal Navy.
Secondly, the U-boats would starve the country of supplies and arms by savaging the Atlantic convoys.
Third, the Germans would launch the invasion, possibly moving directly across the Channel, but perhaps attempting a landing at a less obvious point, as the Allies actually did during Operation Overlord.
All of which would take place after German bomber raids had rendered the British naval bases inoperable.
A combined arms operation all around.
-
Originally posted by Angus
How did they capture Crete?
Not by airpower alone
-
What?
It was a complete airborne invasion AFAIK.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What?
It was a complete airborne invasion AFAIK.
yes.. using TROOPS..
they dindt land there and drive their planes around on the roads and hillsides shooting people.
-
The timeatable for Sealion was for the summer of 1940.
The Germans didnt have enough U-boats to starve Britain, they tried, but failed, and the RN even then had only a small percentage of their force doing convoy escort duty. The U-boat force wasnt big enough, and there was no timeframe to attempt it in 1940.
They were not able to destroy all the British naval bases despite all the bombing. The Home Fleet anchorage is at Scapa Flow, in Scotland, beyond the range of effective fighter cover.
The plans for Sealion are well known, and involve a lot of small barges and auxiliary craft, slow, and unable to take heavy seas. The landing areas they were going to use were all along the south coast.
Even with the massive air and naval force the allies had in Overlord (much larger than Sealion), it was a difficult thing to pull off. In June, not in September.
They still might have suceeded, im just pointing out some of the difficulties. It was by no means going to be an easy undertaking.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
yes.. using TROOPS..
they dindt land there and drive their planes around on the roads and hillsides shooting people.
PARATROOPS BELONG TO AIRPOWER
-
Originally posted by Squire
The timeatable for Sealion was for the summer of 1940.
The Germans didnt have enough U-boats to starve Britain, they tried, but failed, and the RN even then had only a small percentage of their force doing convoy escort duty. The U-boat force wasnt big enough, and there was no timeframe to attempt it in 1940.
They were not able to destroy all the British naval bases despite all the bombing. The Home Fleet anchorage is at Scapa Flow, in Scotland, beyond the range of effective fighter cover.
The plans for Sealion are well known, and involve a lot of small barges and auxiliary craft, slow, and unable to take heavy seas. The landing areas they were going to use were all along the south coast.
Even with the massive air and naval force the allies had in Overlord (much larger than Sealion), it was a difficult thing to pull off. In June, not in September.
They still might have suceeded, im just pointing out some of the difficulties. It was by no means going to be an easy undertaking.
The Uboats managed enough for the British to have food rationing in 1940, way before the Uboat prime-time.
The Naval bases were more or less allright. But Scapa Flow is too far away for a channel interception, and the LW caused daytime ops in the channel to be pretty risky. Homefleet at Scapa is too far away, - has to be on patrol.
Overlord does not compare so well. The weather was bad (+ and -) but the distance is very much more. (not so marked in sailing hours for barges though)
But as for barges, yes, they needed a still night to pull it off.
I agree with you, - it would have been a risky undertaking, with RN Destroyers making Banzai attacks at the bargeline (read about HMS Gloworm for example, - there was no lack of guts in the RN!).
But IMHO, the Germans could have pulled it off if they had got rid of the RAF as quickly as other airforces.
A second victory could have been won by bombing Britain into submission, which they tried of course, but the RAF stood.
So, bottom line from me is that if the RAF had been swept away in the first weeks of the BoB, the Germans would have won.
-
The Royal Navy never could have intercepted the initial invasion without prior warning (which they might have got through Enigma) true, but navies dont need to. They intercept while your are resupplying.
Gibraltar and Scapa Flow are a days sailing from the Channel (15 knots say, over 24 hours, is 360+ miles). With their entire fleet. LW or no, it would have been bloody.
Same is true for an airborne landing, it isnt so much the intial drop, its the resupply, that the RAF would have played havoc with. Paras need ammo, ect.
Food rationing, sure, would not have prevented the fleet from sailing.
I think your main point is right, that with no RAF, it would have been grim. I agree.
Just trying to add some perspective. I certainly dont discount the RN, but like I said in my 1st post, I think the authors over state the case.
-
YUP.
The sneak factor is where one gets a little lost. All the What if's.
Then the continuation factor.
How much could the German Paras handle?
How much could the Kriegsmarine itself have done (UK goes out, the Kriegsmarine has no job)
How many troops (paras and boats, little barges) could have made it to foothold in a night time.
How would the fighting have developed, - remember, aircover, but NO PANZERS.?
How is the terrain? Would Kent have been another Bocage?
Resupply?
Boils out to this, - the RN needs to be mostly eliminated from the equation, and the RAF was in the way ;)
P.S. Gibraltar is some 1000 miles away from the channel. Straight line.
So, anything but the home fleet is out of the equation for some days.
Which would be too late.
-
CC on Gibraltar, didnt have my map in front of me. Home Fleet on D+1, Gibraltar Med Fleet on D+2.
Yes, a lot of "what ifs"...
-
That's what makes it so much fun to speculate about ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
PARATROOPS BELONG TO AIRPOWER
OH IF YOU SEE IT LIKE THAT!
HOW COULD GERMANY EVER GET ENOUGH PARATROOPERS TO TAKE BRITAIN BY THE AIR?
hehe/he-he-he :D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It was never the German's intent to try to occupy Britain with only planes.
First they would seize control of the Channel....possibly faking the launch of the invasion to draw the RN into those narrow waters. The resulting battle would have been a bloodbath for the Royal Navy.
Secondly, the U-boats would starve the country of supplies and arms by savaging the Atlantic convoys.
Third, the Germans would launch the invasion, possibly moving directly across the Channel, but perhaps attempting a landing at a less obvious point, as the Allies actually did during Operation Overlord.
All of which would take place after German bomber raids had rendered the British naval bases inoperable.
A combined arms operation all around.
Sorry, but this is almost all wrong.
Germany could not sieze full control of the channel because they had a huge material disadvantage in naval forces and no real prospect of achieving meaningful air superiority.
The U-boat arm was already operating at full capacity in the atlantic and the small number of escorts engaged were having little effect on the outcome. The limting factor was the small numbers of available u-boats and crews, not allied escort vessels.
The area of planned invasion is a matter of record. Germany would have landed on sites between Hythe to the east and Rottingdean to the west.
The luftwaffe could not render British naval bases inoperable because they were mostly out of range of effective fighter cover.
To take it further.
A prospective invasion had to occur in the south east of england because that was the extent of Lutwaffe single-seat fighter cover. The problem for Germany was that the channel at this point is very treacherous, with very stong currents, and sand-bars blocking otherwise prime invasion beaches. The flat-bottomed barges they intended to use would have been limited to towing at 5 knots or less, even assuming perfect weather conditions and would have been sitting targets for the large numbers of small coastal defence vessels clustered in the straits of dover, without any need for the large part of the Home Fleet to get involved. The elements of weather and sea conditions alone would have made it a very perilous undertaking even without the factors of naval and air opposition.
Air Superiority - one point that everyone seems to have missed is that even if the LW hadn't shifted target to London, it was only 11 Group of Fighter Command that was being hit, since 11 Group covered the part of the country within range of effective LW fighter cover. If the pressure on 11 Group had been maintained, Fighter Command could have fallen back to the untouched fields of 12 and 10 Groups which were outside Luftwaffe single-seater fighter range but which were still situated close enough to allow fighter cover to be launched over the channel, as well as to contest LW raids in general.
Faulty strategy on the part of the german leadership prevented an air victory for Germany: they generally still subscribed to inter-war theories of strategic bombing which focussed on the effect on public morale. Couple this with strategic discrepancies between the Luftwaffe leadership; Sperle wanting to keep hitting air defense infrastructure for example while Kesselring wanted to force the issue by bombing London into submission. No real coherent plan was the result.
There seems to be a certain misunderstanding here as to what the German strategy actually was for Operation Sealion. Erich Raeder set out four essential preconditions for an invasion to have even a chance of success. These were:
1. Elimination of the home fleet or at best rendering it unable to intervene.
2. Elimination of the RAF
3. Prevention of the RN submarine forces from intervening
4. Destruction of Coastal Defences
Point 1 was a pipe dream. the RN's main anchorages were out of range of LW fighter cover, and unescorted raids on the ports were not viable as evidenced by those attempted by Luftflotte 5 against the north of england in which the LW bombers were very roughly handled by 13 Group Fighter Command. Point 2 couldn't happen because the LW couldn't hit 10 and 12 Group's infrastructure without taking unsustainable losses, whilst 10 and 12 Groups could still contest the invasion area. Point 3 would have been difficult to realise as German anti-submarine capacity was very lacking in 1940 (even more so than the British). Little was ever done by Germany to address point 4.
-
Hehe, all the If's.
Nilsen, I guess you are a navy guy.
If Paratroopers (as well as aircrew) are not a part of airpower, are navy guys then not a part of Naval power?
Both are multi-role. But their main job is their main job.
Sorry mate, but I think this is a straw.
And Momus....don't get too stuck on Raeders terms. He wasn't too hot on the invasion at all, and he was a cautious guy.
Add to that equation that Hitler had already stated that the war was won.
Germany was not expecting the UK to kick much after being routed out of France.
To count some more "theoretical" things, - 5 kts crossing speed is enough to make it over the channel under the curtain of darkness.
Another point, - the Germans were not too familiar with the RAF infrastructure, - that's why the RAF was underestimated so much. 13th group for instance was mostly out of the battle (they caught the LW in their beds when they tried an attack over the north sea), and 12th group didn't really enter the fray before September. (Bader's lads).
Could the RAF have been destroyed? Well, in the perfect LW world yes, and in the perfect RAF world, LW would have lost worse. It was up for the question who would win, the LW had faced those numbers before in France and it was not much of a problem. So, here's Winnie on his last patch, letz do him....
Naval bases in the south as well as airfields could have been bombed inoperable. Some actually did get that treatment.
The channel got Luftwaffled enough for convoys to go only in the dark.
Coastal defences could not even stop the Scarnhorst - Gneisenau run-through as much as a year later.
So, it was a matter of the dice whether to launch or not.
And the daylight bombings of London BTW, almost incited a public revolt.
Still at it, I think the Jerries came very close, and might have pulled it off, but it would have been a big mess.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Momus....don't get too stuck on Raeders terms. He wasn't too hot on the invasion at all, and he was a cautious guy.
Raeder was cautious because he knew how futile an invasion attempt was likely to be, for all the reasons given.
To count some more "theoretical" things, - 5 kts crossing speed is enough to make it over the channel under the curtain of darkness.
And that same curtain of darkness would neutralize any german air-superiority advantage. The RN was well equipped to fight a night action.
The channel got Luftwaffled enough for convoys to go only in the dark.
Yes, as doing so was a sensible precaution that saved the RAF having to protect the convoys with all the defensive disadvantage that went along with that job. If the roles had been reversed in a german invasion the situation would have been very different.
Coastal defences could not even stop the Scarnhorst - Gneisenau run-through as much as a year later.
A one-off surprise channel dash hardly compares to the sustained operations required of a major seaborne invasion.
So, it was a matter of the dice whether to launch or not.
That might be your opinion. I don't think the OKH and the Kreigsmarine ever truly believed an invasion could succeed.
And the daylight bombings of London BTW, almost incited a public revolt.
Really? The sources I've encountered, including talking to family members who experienced the bombing first hand , indicate that civilian morale was hardened as a result of the bombing.
-
This (http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-1940-Did-/dp/0786716185/sr=8-8/qid=1156871994/ref=pd_bbs_8/002-6431273-9266403?ie=UTF8) is supposed to be a pretty good book on the subject (although I haven't read it yet).
I'm a big fan of the author's fictional works - 'Piece of Cake' and 'A Good Clean Fight' are highly recommended if you've never read them.
-
Momus, a part of London was about to rally for revolution when Buckingham palace got hit as well.
(I actually met a pilot who was intercepting that raid)
Anyway, recommended books to add are:
Clouds of fear (Roger "Sammy" Hall")
Shot down in flames (Geoffrey Page)
Wing Leader, and, Full Circle (James E Johnsson)
Fighter (Len Deighton, so use glasses)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Momus, a part of London was about to rally for revolution when Buckingham palace got hit as well.
That's great. We've gone from "public revolt" to "rally". You're going to have to provide a source make a further case.
-
Read Time-Life's Battle of Britain, or Martin Gilbert's WW2.
Even Hitler belived that Britain could be broken by civil airraids on London.
Wan't a quote?
-
Well, Hitler was clearly wrong wasn't he? As was Harris later on.
If you've got the books in question then please quote the relevant section detailing the near "public revolt" that resulted from the bombing of London. We can then look at it in context and judge how close it actually came to undermining british resistance, which I think was the point you were making?
-
It's in Icelandic, so I will have to give you the work.
I'll find the chapter though and page, it should be close.
-
Time-Life, Battle of Britain by Leonard Mosley.
Chapter 5.
A quick translation tells one that there is a myth, that the British never gave up their spirit in the BoB.
Anyway, there was a rather lively parade, and anger was boiling within the poorer population, on top fuelled by communism.
Churchill was aware of that, - and on the 13th of September, a bomb hit Buckinham Palace. A "hush" was prepared, but Churchill saw a good opportunity and ordered that it would be published in the papers.
"Let the public of London know that they're not alone, that their king and queen share the danger"
(He had been warned that it was getting close to revolt, and indeed there had been more incidents like in Liverpool (Lootings and sabotages/vandalism))
-
Hitler's words on the 14th of September were that the preconditions for invasion were yet not in hand, but the bombings on London should continue. "If eight million inhabitants go crazy, that can lead to catastrophe. If we get good weather and neutralize the enemy's airforce, even a small scale invasion can work wonders"
As for that and Harris, they both had a point. Harris could not bomb Germany into submission, nor were the British bombed into submission. But reither's enemy knew how close it got.
And it did work...with the Nuke.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
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
Oh dear Shuckins. Look at Crete where dispite the LW's air superiority the German sea borne invasion force was decimated (should say annililated). Was there some RN losses? Yes. The Germans had improved their anti-ship capability since BoB.
How many naval ships were lost in the convoys to Malta?
Even in Norwegian waters, prior to BoB, the LW did not sink as many naval ships as the KM did.
-
Are you absoluely sure about this Milo?
Out of memory, I always thought the Med was a bit bloody.
-
Angus, you are questioning the Malta convoys?
Yes civie, as opposed to naval, ships took a beating.
-
Yeah, well, the KM didn't get that many civilian vessels but racked up some tonnage of warships.
In a flash I remember the Glorious, the Hood, some Destroyers, and many ships that got hit, but again, the KM got a beating instead.
I recall no capital RN ship being sunk by the LW, but surely some DD's.
-
The Suffolk in Norway.
It took some 80-90 sorties over several hours to put the stern awash, yet she still made port.
-
The huge difference between 1941-1942 Mediterranean theatre and a prospective 1940 operation in the English Channel is that in the Med the Luftwaffe was operating specialist maritime forces that simply didn't exist in 1940. Also, comparing RN losses over the course of an entire campaign to what would have been by definition a very short fight in the invasion area is not comparing like for like at all.
Angus,
I think what your book is referring to is the warning made to Churchill by Clement Atlee in autumn 1940 that resentment of the bombing in the East End of London might develop into more revolutionary tendencies. Whilst such resentment clearly existed, the bombing extended and in fact intensified well into 1941 without any real outbreak of revolutionary fervor, which I think demonstrates how unfounded, though perhaps understandable, such fears actually were.
-
CC, I know.
But try to imagine how intensive it could have been WITHOUT the RAF.
After all, Britain is a democratic country, so I'd say that Hitler's words there were not so far off.
And the Channel? Well, it's narrow waters, so the LW could mount several sorties a day. Would doubtlessly have been very ugly.
RN vs KM and LW? Well....ugly I'd say. Torpedo boats, Destroyers, Cruisers, Subs and capital ships jabos and Stukas all in the drink...
-
Ding.
This thread is alive again.
Just ran across the fact how long it takes to SWIM across the channel.
It's 20-26 hours.
Sort of a good input for realizing how short the distance is.
So, even if the Home fleet gets Ultra information about zeh schwimmer when he dips in they won't make it in time for interception if they start off at Scapa Flow. :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Just ran across the fact how long it takes to SWIM across the channel.
It's 20-26 hours.
Speak for your self fishy... ill take 48 hours on a calm day please, and have the coast guard ready with cpr. :D
-
I'd be fishfood in 48 hrs :D
-
Nilsen, you're too close to the arctic.
normal people only have 24hr days available
-
Im sorry, who's going to swim across and invade England?
Did you have to volunteer? :D
-
Do you think the barges would be slower?
(That was my secret point)
-
Don't forget fewer than 10% of people who have attempted to swim the channel have been successful.
-
Is nobody getting the point?
A swimmer is faster across than the Home fleet from Scapa flow.
An oarboat is faster than the Swimmer.
A barge is faster than the oarsman.
A boat is faster than a barge.
A warship is faster than the boat.
End point of mine is that I belive that if the LW had total air superiority, and the Germans had launched the invasion at night, assisted by the Kriegsmarine, they would have pulled enough troops across for a foothold.
So, ?
-
When I weas over in the UK 2 weeks ago, the BBC was interviewing the First Sea lord at the Navys open day, they asked him the same question
His reply word for word I can't remember, but it was along the lines of the RAF won the Battle, not the Navy.
Hope this puts this to bed...
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Nilsen, you're too close to the arctic.
normal people only have 24hr days available
Last time i checked we too have 24 hour days. No inflation there im afraid. Would be sweet with 48 if we still lived as many years as we do tho.