Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: FluffyKitty on July 22, 2008, 07:43:32 AM
-
So who would win :salute
everybody knows the outcome of the Battle of Britain in August 1940. But if it wasn't for Hitler switching his attention to Russia in 1941 there would have been a round 2. So here is my question, and point of discussion: if a second Battle of Britain commenced in the summer of 1941 would the Germans have won? (And by that I mean gained and maintained air superiority over southern England and the English Channel) The luftwaffe would have been equipped with the BF109F, and the RAF with the Spitfire Mk5, so there is an entire discussion regarding the relative merits of those two planes against each other, and of course let us not forget about the hurricane.
But there would be many other factors, some subtle and some obvious that could affect the outcome greatly. Perhaps the most significant of this would be the simple addition of long-range fuel tanks for the 109s. They lacked these in 1940 and only had a matter of minutes of the South England before they had to return to base. If this was addressed in 1941 this would have been a significant force multiplier. But that should be counterbalanced against the increased RAF fight production and pilot training that was on line by 1941 and also the adoption luftwaffe fighter tactics.
So who would win?
-
Britain , Britain , Britain
-
Britain...again
-
as we biuld there aircraft id say britain. we would sabotage all teh planes we biuld for them lol.
plus we have the best pilots. :salute :rock
-
Britain , Britain , Britain
No bias there, eh Bruv
-
the DT's had a lot to do with it(1940), plus the british radar, so maybe Germany would have had the advantage by 1941. In reality, Goering was a self-centered bafoon and blew the first battle with extremely dim-witted planning and execution. He was still in charge in '41 so outcome would probably be the same.
-
Britan for a few reasons (listed from least to most important):
1. Germany didn't have great long range heavy bombers. Not on the order of the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc. anyway. This would limit their effectiveness on a per sortie basis.
2. Similar to in AH, the British could RTB, re-fuel, re-arm and re-up relatively quickly while the Germans faced a much longer turn-around time. This means the Brits could effectively do more with less.
3. As round 2 continued, the US would have entered the war and come to Britan's aid.
-
There's a reason why history doesn't deal with "what-if"s.
Too many variables/premises can be simply supposed to support one's own view.
What if, Goering finally understood his own mistakes in overall strategical deployment of the Luftwaffe?
What if Germany came up with a longer range fighter?
What if Germany went back to the field-pounding raids?
What if the war lasted longer without US? Can British manpower defeat Germany in attrition rates?
Totally meaningless unless the question comes with specific limitations in our free "supposing everything".
-
Britain.
And 308th would have been the best scoring fighter squad, again :D
Let the chute killings continue..
-
i actually believe that, had hitler kept up the pressure on england, they'd have fallen. even with a small amoutn of recovery time, they may have.
the 2 biggest things that saved england then, was the united states, and the fact that hitler turned his attention away from them.
at that point, the luftwaffe still had experienced pilots. england was putting kids with less than 20 hours in the air to fight them off. some kicked ass, a lot died.
this is just what i think though........
-
the 2 biggest things that saved england then, was the united states, and the fact that hitler turned his attention away from them.
.. and that goering was a complete retard
-
Britan for a few reasons (listed from least to most important):
1. Germany didn't have great long range heavy bombers. Not on the order of the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc. anyway. This would limit their effectiveness on a per sortie basis.
wasn't the luftwaffe flying their bombers out of france, negating the need for long range bombers?
2. Similar to in AH, the British could RTB, re-fuel, re-arm and re-up relatively quickly while the Germans faced a much longer turn-around time. This means the Brits could effectively do more with less.
this is very true, that they could do this, but it would be almost pointless against a steady stream of bombers
3. As round 2 continued, the US would have entered the war and come to Britan's aid.
THIS would have been the biggest deciding factor. the only problem is that england may have been tooo far gone by the time we got into it IF hitler had kept up the pressure, and IF they had learned from their mistakes the first time round.
<<S>>
-
.. and that goering was a complete retard
ok, i forgot him.........
three things :rofl :aok
-
Britain with ease i think.
As Bald rightly said - Germany lacked any effective bombers.
But also: -
- The RAF was using cannon in 1941 which would have made downing bombers much easier
- The RAF pilots had a lot more experience
- Better equipment
- Better tactics
- Better defences
- Better production
- Better training for new pilots
- A hugely more effective bomber force - including Stirlings, Manchesters, Mosquitoes and Halifaxes
I don't think the Germans would have stood a chance at all.
-
i actually believe that, had hitler kept up the pressure on england, they'd have fallen. even with a small amoutn of recovery time, they may have.
the 2 biggest things that saved england then, was the united states, and the fact that hitler turned his attention away from them.
at that point, the luftwaffe still had experienced pilots. england was putting kids with less than 20 hours in the air to fight them off. some kicked ass, a lot died.
this is just what i think though........
That is rubbish, the RAF had plenty of experience by that point, they had been in the war since 1939 and had progressively improved everything. We were not saved by the United States at all, it is debatable whether the British could have invaded mainland Europe on their own, but certainly was not saved. The RAF saved Britain, and by doing that, enabled Britain to be free and made the liberation of Europe possible. A lot is owed to all those men from all those countries that fought in the BoB.
In May 1942 Bomber Command launched their first 1,000 bomber raid. The US 8th Air Force began operations some two months later? Seems strange to me that the entry of the USA saved Britain...
-
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm
.
this is a bit of an interesting read./......
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii_Ready_for_War.htm
-
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm
.
this is a bit of an interesting read./......
I think i may have misunderstood your original post, i thought you were referring to the What If scenario...
Anyways, Germany was losing far too many aircraft to have won the first battle, the RAF was too strong at the end of it and the onset of winter was coming.
This is the best page on the battle IMO: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html
-
That is rubbish, the RAF had plenty of experience by that point, they had been in the war since 1939 and had progressively improved everything. We were not saved by the United States at all, it is debatable whether the British could have invaded mainland Europe on their own, but certainly was not saved. The RAF saved Britain, and by doing that, enabled Britain to be free and made the liberation of Europe possible. A lot is owed to all those men from all those countries that fought in the BoB.
In May 1942 Bomber Command launched their first 1,000 bomber raid. The US 8th Air Force began operations some two months later? Seems strange to me that the entry of the USA saved Britain...
well, my main point was that through attrition, the raf pilots going up to protect the country were very low time. the raf did an incredible job doing what they did....and i wasn't trying to take away from that.
and, yes, we all do owe TONS to all of the men and women that fought for our freedoms back then.........
-
I think i may have misunderstood your original post, i thought you were referring to the What If scenario...
Anyways, Germany was losing far too many aircraft to have won the first battle, the RAF was too strong at the end of it and the onset of winter was coming.
This is the best page on the battle IMO: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html
understood.....i don't put anyone down that fought for tha allies back then.....well...maybe france :noid
but serioously, if you took any offense to what i had previously posted, none was intended.....
someone else mentioned there's a reason we don't play the "what if" game.......think he was right
-
understood.....i don't put anyone down that fought for tha allies back then.....well...maybe france :noid
but serioously, if you took any offense to what i had previously posted, none was intended.....
someone else mentioned there's a reason we don't play the "what if" game.......think he was right
I am not at all offended, just disagree with what you had posted :aok
-
So who would win :salute
everybody knows the outcome of the Battle of Britain in August 1940. But if it wasn't for Hitler switching his attention to Russia in 1941 there would have been a round 2. So here is my question, and point of discussion: if a second Battle of Britain commenced in the summer of 1941 would the Germans have won?
Nope, for the following reasons:
- In the Air, Germany was unable to achieve air superiority in 1940 even with vastly superior numbers, and it is very doubtful they would have won even if they had not made the mistakes we are aware of in retrospect, despite the opinion of some authors that they might have. For example, even if the attacks against airfields had been sustained, the solution was simply to move the aircraft to airfields that were out of range, or use smaller more dispersed grass airfields. It is unlikely that the RAF could ever have been grounded, but that did make for more dramatic reading. If they couldn't do it in 1940, they wouldn't have been able to in 1941 when the odds were much better
- On land, in 1940 Britain was still recovering from Dunkirk and was ill prepared to defend against an invasion with battle weary troops who were poorly equipped in comparison. If an invasion was still a real threat by 1941 the defences would have been much better prepared, so I believe that 1940 was the best and probably the only chance for success
- At sea, a Factor often overlooked is the role of the Royal Navy in the event of an attempted sea crossing, many believe that wouldn't have been possible in 1940, and nothing changed in that respect by 1941, the home fleet was still an impressive and formidable obstacle
- Logistically, there is also the almost laughable detailed plans for operation sealion, sending troops across the channel in canal barges would never succeed, not in 1940, not ever, unless the German plan was simply to drown as many of their own troops as possible. That aspect alone is enough to suggest that the invasion was only ever a bluff, intended to bring England to the peace table so that Hitler was free to invade Russia, my opinion is that the Germans really believed that if they could obtain air superiority, and exclude the Royal Navy by laying mines, they could make the crossing. If it had ever got that far I'm sure it would have been a huge and grand disaster because those barges were absolutely not sea worthy, and particularly unsuitable for conditions in the channel.
- Also, by June 1941 Germany had launched operation Barbarossa with the invasion of Russia, so the Luftwaffe would have been divided between two fronts, an entirely untenable situation that would have doomed a second attempt to failure
Those are just a few suggestions for why a second attempt might not have succeeded one year later.
Badboy
-
the 2 biggest things that saved england then, was the united states, and the fact that hitler turned his attention away from them.
Any significant help from the USA only came after the Battle of Britain had already been decided, and there is some question whether that help would have come at all if the Battle of Britain had not been won. Public opinion in the USA at the time was strongly in favour of maintaining neutrality, particularly when most Americans (and the rest of the world) at that time believed England was a lost cause. It was only the victory that swayed the mood of the American people to support Britain in terms of materials and supplies, and it took the attack on Pearl Harbor 16 months later to clinch full hearted support.
Badboy
-
the 2 biggest things that saved england then, was the united states, and the fact that hitler turned his attention away from them.
I'm personally of the opinion that the British Empire saved the United States... (I'm an American, by the way).
Germany came pretty darn close to knocking off two of world's greatest Empire's at the time (British and Russian). It took just about everything both those nations had, plus the United States, and a host of smaller but still important nations to finally defeat them.
Imagine if they were able to divide and conquer? It's a scary thought.
Thank you, British Empire and Churchill :salute
-
We were not saved by the United States at all, it is debatable whether the British could have invaded mainland Europe on their own, but certainly was not saved.
LMAO, with all due respect:
"Winston Churchill once wrote, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. Churchill could not have been more correct.
The importance of the threat posed by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') during World War Two to the Atlantic lifeline(they don't call it the Atlantic Lifeline for nothing, US is on other side of Atlantic, hee hee), for which Britain depended on for food and supplies(from US), could have had dire consequences had they succeeded, and would undoubtedly led to the defeat of Britain." Destroyer for Bases deal September 1940 Washington D.C. and London U.S. transfers 50 old destroyers to Britain in exchange for use of eight British Atlantic bases.
Lend-Lease plan November 1940 Washington D.C. U.S. would "lend" military equipment to cash-strapped Britain. Britain was already on rations at begining of 1940 for food, clothing, and other essentials.
"A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain" That's 420 billion to britain by 2007 prices *note Britain paid in full recently
On a lighter side - "BBC News says Britain still owes the United States $4.4 billion -- the equivalent of about $79 billion today -- from World War I. "
I think you are a little off base with the statement I quoted of you. I like the British and admire them deeply for their resolve during the war. Churchill is one of my alltime fav leaders. But to say that Britain could have invaded Europe by themselves with no help from US is complete and utter rubbish! Maybe you need to talk to some of those(alive at the time) who were sustained by US goods during the first two years of the war, not to mention throughout '42-'45. :aok
-
I'm personally of the opinion that the British Empire saved the United States... (I'm an American, by the way).
Germany came pretty darn close to knocking off two of world's greatest Empire's at the time (British and Russian). It took just about everything both those nations had, plus the United States, and a host of smaller but still important nations to finally defeat them.
Imagine if they were able to divide and conquer? It's a scary thought.
Thank you, British Empire and Churchill :salute
SEE, i could kind of agree with that. but first i think i'm going to put another question in here.
when the 8th air force came into the battle, they took over the daytime bombing raids from the british. why? i think i had read that the british could not sustain the losses? as their aircraft were less well defended than our 17's and 24's?
if that was the case, then i would think it was more like we saved each others collective asses, as with the british running night raids, and us running daytimie raids, the germans simply could not recover. i think.
-
there is some question whether that help would have come at all if the Battle of Britain had not been won.
Good point.
-
SEE, i could kind of agree with that. but first i think i'm going to put another question in here.
when the 8th air force came into the battle, they took over the daytime bombing raids from the british.
That depends on what Battle you are talking about, the 8th Air Force was deployed in Britain in 1942 almost two years AFTER the Battle of Britain had been won.
You seem to be talking about the war in general, and not the "Battle of Britain" which officially started on 10 July and ended on 31 October 1940
Badboy
-
That depends on what Battle you are talking about, the 8th Air Force was deployed in Britain in 1942 almost two years AFTER the Battle of Britain had been won.
You seem to be talking about the war in general, and not the "Battle of Britain" which officially started on 10 July and ended on 31 October 1940
Badboy
well, with the question i poosed, i did kinda hijack to a more general war outlook on it........i realize now my error in timing of the mighty 8th comming to help........
-
Why is this thread even continuing?
Everyone knows the Battle of Britain was won by Polish Pilots :D
And in 1941 or 42, we would be there to greet them again!
-
Why is this thread even continuing?
Everyone knows the Battle of Britain was won by Polish Pilots :D
And in 1941 or 42, we would be there to greet them again!
didn't they cause a lot of confusion with their accents, and in some cases not knowing english?> :noid :noid
it was the eagle squadrons that won it for them :aok :noid
and if i remember correctly from reading the americans that flew in those squadrons, gave up their american citizenship? to help?
-
didn't they cause a lot of confusion with their accents, and in some cases not knowing english?> :noid :noid
it was the eagle squadrons that won it for them :aok :noid
and if i remember correctly from reading the americans that flew in those squadrons, gave up their american citizenship? to help?
You did not have to give up your original citizenship to join the RAF, atleast I don't think so. That would have been absurd.
Polish pilots were the most experienced during BoB, having flown both in september 1939 and France. And contrary to public misconception, they did know english although their accents were not great. However they prefered to talk in Polish over the radio in the heat of battle.
-
Britain.
And 308th would have been the best scoring fighter squad, again :D
Let the chute killings continue..
That would be the 303rd.
-
An interesting topic.. 'What Ifs' can always be fun.
Question, though. I had always read or seen that the RAF was on the ropes during the Battle of Britain and was almost completely destroyed, right when the Blitz began and the bombing focussed on London, instead of the continuing attacks on airfields and such.
Changing to bombing London saved the RAF, allowing them to rebuild and finally defeat the bombing campaign.
Is this wrong?
-
That would be the 303rd.
Darn you Karaya :D
:salute
-
Why is this thread even continuing?
Everyone knows the Battle of Britain was won by Polish Pilots :D
And in 1941 or 42, we would be there to greet them again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related)
:D
-
Darn you Karaya :D
:salute
Bracia w broniach.
:salute
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related)
:D
repeat please!! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I don't think you could compare the aircraft that they ended up with, with what they likely would have had if the Germans were on attack again. The Germans likely would have been developing aircraft to deal with the spits rather than kill bombers and the Brits would have been developing aircraft to deal with German bombers.
-
Bracia w broniach.
:salute
Za waszą wolność, i naszą :)
-
repeat please!! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:furious
:lol
-
:furious
sorry, no offense intended.i couldn't resist.....
<<S>>
:lol
sorry, no offense intended.i couldn't resist.....
<<S>>
-
Question, though. I had always read or seen that the RAF was on the ropes during the Battle of Britain and was almost completely destroyed, right when the Blitz began and the bombing focussed on London, instead of the continuing attacks on airfields and such.
Changing to bombing London saved the RAF, allowing them to rebuild and finally defeat the bombing campaign.
Is this wrong?
Basically, yes that's wrong.
The idea that the RAF came close to defeat is very dramatic and the concept of the "narrow margin" has more to do with dramatisation and common misconceptions than reality. The simple fact is that both RAF pilot and aircraft numbers were not reduced during the Battle of Britain. This was partly due to the success of Beaverbrook in his first months as Minister of Aircraft Production. He inherited a favourable upward swing, but his ruthless improvisation considerably fortified this. The so-called Harrogate Programme of January 1940 provided for a year’s output of 3,602 fighters (very precise). The total achieved was 4,283, which meant that nearly 352 fighters a month were forthcoming over the crucial summer and autumn months. The German output during the same period was barely half that.
One example of this kind of dramatisation can be seen in the description of events of Sunday 15th August 1940, the most intense day in the Battle, Churchill drove from Chequers to visit Air Vice-Marshal Park at Fighter Command HQ where he controlled the fighter squadrons covering the whole of Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. As they watched the lights on the key indicator boards it became apparent that there were no longer any reserve squadrons left on the board, and Churchill asked Park, "What other reserves have we?" "There are none," Park answered.
That often quoted exchange is used to create the feeling of a closely fought battle with drama worthy of Hollywood. It may have been true that there were no local reserves, or none that could be available in time to effect that days raids, but that's all. At no time during the Battle were the RAF ever close to defeat, they were not depleted in either aircraft, pilots or moral. However, when you take quotes like the one above, and include with them the fears and reservations quoted from other famous participants it is possible to paint a picture of a close call, or a narrow margin, a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat... but facts don't support that picture, and I suspect it probably has more to do with book sales than real history :)
Badboy
-
No offence taken.
I think that clip is pretty funny also. That is how the 308th became operational, BTW so its correct in historical context.
-
Basically, yes that's wrong.
The idea that the RAF came close to defeat is very dramatic and the concept of the "narrow margin" has more to do with dramatisation and common misconceptions than reality. The simple fact is that both RAF pilot and aircraft numbers were not reduced during the Battle of Britain. This was partly due to the success of Beaverbrook in his first months as Minister of Aircraft Production. He inherited a favourable upward swing, but his ruthless improvisation considerably fortified this. The so-called Harrogate Programme of January 1940 provided for a year’s output of 3,602 fighters (very precise). The total achieved was 4,283, which meant that nearly 352 fighters a month were forthcoming over the crucial summer and autumn months. The German output during the same period was barely half that.
One example of this kind of dramatisation can be seen in the description of events of Sunday 15th August 1940, the most intense day in the Battle, Churchill drove from Chequers to visit Air Vice-Marshal Park at Fighter Command HQ where he controlled the fighter squadrons covering the whole of Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. As they watched the lights on the key indicator boards it became apparent that there were no longer any reserve squadrons left on the board, and Churchill asked Park, "What other reserves have we?" "There are none," Park answered.
That often quoted exchange is used to create the feeling of a closely fought battle with drama worthy of Hollywood. It may have been true that there were no local reserves, or none that could be available in time to effect that days raids, but that's all. At no time during the Battle were the RAF ever close to defeat, they were not depleted in either aircraft, pilots or moral. However, when you take quotes like the one above, and include with them the fears and reservations quoted from other famous participants it is possible to paint a picture of a close call, or a narrow margin, a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat... but facts don't support that picture, and I suspect it probably has more to do with book sales than real history :)
Badboy
This is very debatable.
It is a general matter of knowledge that if the German focus was not switched to Berlin, had they continued to pound the raf fields and concentrate on destroying them, they would have won the war of attrition.
That being said, the raf had many factors on their side, all of which were previously mentioned (radar, good defence system with central control center, technically superior fighters). There was just not enough pilots to sustain the attrition had the switch to London not happened.
Keep in mind that goering ordered his fighter pilots to stay in close formation to the bombers, which stripped them of their alt advantage etc. I feel that goering here was the only thing that kept Germany from victory over Britain. He was simply a retard. Thank god too.
-
LMAO, with all due respect:
"Winston Churchill once wrote, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. Churchill could not have been more correct.
The importance of the threat posed by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') during World War Two to the Atlantic lifeline(they don't call it the Atlantic Lifeline for nothing, US is on other side of Atlantic, hee hee), for which Britain depended on for food and supplies(from US), could have had dire consequences had they succeeded, and would undoubtedly led to the defeat of Britain." Destroyer for Bases deal September 1940 Washington D.C. and London U.S. transfers 50 old destroyers to Britain in exchange for use of eight British Atlantic bases.
Lend-Lease plan November 1940 Washington D.C. U.S. would "lend" military equipment to cash-strapped Britain. Britain was already on rations at begining of 1940 for food, clothing, and other essentials.
"A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain" That's 420 billion to britain by 2007 prices *note Britain paid in full recently
On a lighter side - "BBC News says Britain still owes the United States $4.4 billion -- the equivalent of about $79 billion today -- from World War I. "
I think you are a little off base with the statement I quoted of you. I like the British and admire them deeply for their resolve during the war. Churchill is one of my alltime fav leaders. But to say that Britain could have invaded Europe by themselves with no help from US is complete and utter rubbish! Maybe you need to talk to some of those(alive at the time) who were sustained by US goods during the first two years of the war, not to mention throughout '42-'45. :aok
Read my quote again, i said it is debatable whether they could invade mainland Europe - meaning i doubt they could do it. I have spoken to people alive then, i get to meet them pretty much every day.
That is rubbish, the RAF had plenty of experience by that point, they had been in the war since 1939 and had progressively improved everything. We were not saved by the United States at all, it is debatable whether the British could have invaded mainland Europe on their own, but certainly was not saved. The RAF saved Britain, and by doing that, enabled Britain to be free and made the liberation of Europe possible. A lot is owed to all those men from all those countries that fought in the BoB.
In May 1942 Bomber Command launched their first 1,000 bomber raid. The US 8th Air Force began operations some two months later? Seems strange to me that the entry of the USA saved Britain...
Americans sold trucks and lots of other stuff to the Germans too - guess you could say you were helping both sides as long as you got $$$ for it? As your hero Churchill said "Give us the tools and we shall finish the job". My grandfather was in the Royal Navy and took part in a lot of the major convoy battles, so i know all about the Battle of the Atlantic. It was also a load of clapped out old WWI destroyers which you sold us ;)
As i said, we saved ourselves, you cannot take credit for that. Whether we would have successfully invaded mainland Europe without US aid? Who knows. The British are stubborn, resourceful people, i suspect we would have found a way.
This is very debatable.
It is a general matter of knowledge that if the German focus was not switched to Berlin, had they continued to pound the raf fields and concentrate on destroying them, they would have won the war of attrition.
The Germans aim was bad... but i didn't realise it was that bad ;) :D
-
Furball, you own me both in the MA and on the bbs :rofl
:salute sir
-
This is very debatable.
It is a general matter of knowledge that if the German focus was not switched to Berlin, had they continued to pound the raf fields and concentrate on destroying them, they would have won the war of attrition.
That was the very point I was disputing. That notion is a common fallacy.
The Germans were never winning the war of attrition, the facts simply don't support that. And as I pointed out early, not only did the Germans not deplete aircraft or pilot numbers, even if they had managed to permanently close any airfield (which they didn't and probably couldn't due to the ease with which runways could be repaired) it would have been a simple matter of relocation. Also if the Germans had attempted to attack airfields farther inland, they would have suffered far greater attrition rates themselves because the longer the German aircraft remained over England, the more they were attacked and shot down. Lastly, the aircraft of that day could take off from grass fields and could be dispersed with ease, so it is very unlikely that closing the airfields on the south coast would have effected the outcome, at worst it may have influenced the tactics being used and may have prolonged the battle, but even that is doubtful.
Badboy
-
Basically, yes that's wrong.
The idea that the RAF came close to defeat is very dramatic and the concept of the "narrow margin" has more to do with dramatisation and common misconceptions than reality. The simple fact is that both RAF pilot and aircraft numbers were not reduced during the Battle of Britain. This was partly due to the success of Beaverbrook in his first months as Minister of Aircraft Production. He inherited a favourable upward swing, but his ruthless improvisation considerably fortified this. The so-called Harrogate Programme of January 1940 provided for a year’s output of 3,602 fighters (very precise). The total achieved was 4,283, which meant that nearly 352 fighters a month were forthcoming over the crucial summer and autumn months. The German output during the same period was barely half that.
One example of this kind of dramatisation can be seen in the description of events of Sunday 15th August 1940, the most intense day in the Battle, Churchill drove from Chequers to visit Air Vice-Marshal Park at Fighter Command HQ where he controlled the fighter squadrons covering the whole of Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. As they watched the lights on the key indicator boards it became apparent that there were no longer any reserve squadrons left on the board, and Churchill asked Park, "What other reserves have we?" "There are none," Park answered.
That often quoted exchange is used to create the feeling of a closely fought battle with drama worthy of Hollywood. It may have been true that there were no local reserves, or none that could be available in time to effect that days raids, but that's all. At no time during the Battle were the RAF ever close to defeat, they were not depleted in either aircraft, pilots or moral. However, when you take quotes like the one above, and include with them the fears and reservations quoted from other famous participants it is possible to paint a picture of a close call, or a narrow margin, a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat... but facts don't support that picture, and I suspect it probably has more to do with book sales than real history :)
Badboy
these reads kinda paint a different picture.
from everything i can remember reading when i was younger, england was very very close to defeat. the fact that they weren't is amazing testament to their fortitude.(i think thats the right word)
i really wish i could remember where i read it, but i did read once that they were so low on pilots, that there were new combat pilots being sent up with 20 hours and less in spitfires and hurricanes.
i don't say that as a demeaning thing, again, it is a testament to them.
but on the other hand, i had forgotten about all the things that slapsot posted too, so although we werent there in combat, we were there........sorta kinda,.
and a big :salute to the starter of this thread, as it is interesting to speculate like this. it creates a good fun debate/conversation amongst all us internet geeks :D
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm
.
this is a bit of an interesting read./......
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii_Ready_for_War.htm
:salute :salute :salute to all the men and women that sacraficed for all of the rest of us
-
That was the very point I was disputing. That notion is a common fallacy.
The Germans were never winning the war of attrition, the facts simply don't support that. And as I pointed out early, not only did the Germans not deplete aircraft or pilot numbers, even if they had managed to permanently close any airfield (which they didn't and probably couldn't due to the ease with which runways could be repaired) it would have been a simple matter of relocation. Also if the Germans had attempted to attack airfields farther inland, they would have suffered far greater attrition rates themselves because the longer the German aircraft remained over England, the more they were attacked and shot down. Lastly, the aircraft of that day could take off from grass fields and could be dispersed with ease, so it is very unlikely that closing the airfields on the south coast would have effected the outcome, at worst it may have influenced the tactics being used and may have prolonged the battle, but even that is doubtful.
Badboy
Is it your opinion then that Germany never stood a chance, no matter what tactics they would have employed?
-
That is rubbish, the RAF had plenty of experience by that point, they had been in the war since 1939 and had progressively improved everything. We were not saved by the United States at all, it is debatable whether the British could have invaded mainland Europe on their own, but certainly was not saved. The RAF saved Britain, and by doing that, enabled Britain to be free and made the liberation of Europe possible. A lot is owed to all those men from all those countries that fought in the BoB.
In May 1942 Bomber Command launched their first 1,000 bomber raid. The US 8th Air Force began operations some two months later? Seems strange to me that the entry of the USA saved Britain...
I hear this kind of stuff from the Brits all the time...face it, bombing was the only kind of offensive you guys
could mount in 42. The allies were in major "backup" mode till 6/42. That's all of them, US, UK and USSR.
Even after Midway, the big switch to offense didn't start till early 43 after Stalingrad.
-
That'll come as a surprise to the Brits and Americans who fought in North Africa.
-
Is it your opinion then that Germany never stood a chance, no matter what tactics they would have employed?
On the contrary, it is fairly easy to contrive a set of circumstances where it might have been successful. Based of course on the fact that it is easy to be wise with hindsight. However, given the ability to see the history and the mistakes that were made, correcting them could have changed the outcome.
For example:
- The importance of the British Radar was underestimated and its function misunderstood. Leaving the coastal radar stations intact was a serious mistake, that with the wisdom of hindsight should have been taken out at all cost. It was also a mistake to bomb the open framed structures, that proved very difficult to destroy. It would have been far more effective to use commando raids or paratroopers to take out the radar, destroy the sites completely and kill or capture the operators for interrogation. By doing that the Luftwaffe would have gained the element of surprise, vital in all military operations. Everything else they did from that point would have been more successful and resulted in lighter casualties. With out their eyes, the RAF would have lost the ability to scramble fighters to intercept specific raids, the RAF would have needed to mount patrols, something that was totally unsustainable. By the time raids were spotted it would have been too late to intercept them on the way in, if at all. The RAF Squadrons would have ended up widely scattered trying to find raids based on information from ground spotters, very often chasing distant friendly aircraft up and down the coast and been very much less effective. Achieving that advantage alone, could easily have turned the course of the Battle in 1940.
- The importance of closing airfields was also misunderstood by both sides, the ability to relocate the aircraft with such ease made the effort almost futile, but trying to do it with air attacks alone was and still is only a temporary measure because filling up holes in the ground rarely presents any real difficulty. If you want to permanently deny the enemy the use of an airfield you need to have troops and tanks on the ground. Airborne assault again comes to mind, something that the Germans were very good at and honed to a fine art later in the war. That both sides misunderstood this back in 1940 is clear, in the German case because of they way the attacks were carried out out, and in the British case because of the unfortunate comment made by Dowding when the Germans switched their attacks to London he said it "... could be the German's biggest blunder." a comment that has given the German attacks on British airfields far more merit in the eyes of some post war writers than it really deserved
- Not getting troops on the ground as early as possible was the next mistake. Establishing a beachhead, even if it was initially done by airborne assault was vital, then the focus of the Luftwaffe could have been directed to ground support, local air superiority, and attacks on Navy ships to keep them out of the channel, all things that the Luftwaffe was better equipped for, and were much better at doing. As I mentioned earlier, England was ill prepared to repel invaders for some time after Dunkirk, and once a beachhead had been established it is doubtful that it could have been prevented from breaking out and pushing inland, because the Germans could then be more easily reinforced and because that type of offensive, using the Luftwaffe for close air support was formidable.
- The importance of gaining total air superiority was misunderstood, it simply wasn't necessary. The Germans only needed to secure local air superiority for the initial landing and break out. Destroying the RAF in the air was not essential for an invasion, it was only essential for Goring's ego. The RAF would have been easier to destroy by overrunning their airfields, as they did in Poland, France and later in Russia. By attempting to destroy the RAF in the air the Luftwaffe allowed sufficient time to pass so that the invasion was doomed due to bad weather
- Using tactical aircraft in a strategic role was another mistake that resulted in heavy losses. Facing a well trained, experienced fighter force highly motivated to defend their home territory, the Ju-87 Stukas and Bf-110s could not defend themselves effectively and the Bf-109’s short range was a problem.
The last point is an important one because during the Battle of Britain, the Germans attempted a strategic offensive with a Luftwaffe better equipped for a tactical offensive. The inadequate bombing power was a significant factor contributing to their failure.
However, few people may realise how close Germany came to having the worlds first strategic bomber fleet, equipped with four engined bombers that may have turned the tide at the Battle of Britain because not only would many of the German fighter escort problems have been solved, but the increase in the effectiveness of the bombers may well have been enough to tip the scales between victory and defeat.
For America, England and Germany alike, the development of a strategic bomber fleet rested with men of genius! For America, there was General William "Billy" E. Mitchell, who holds first place among men of exceptional practical foresight and military intuition! Despite his clear-sighted, and farsighted prophetic vision, Mitchell's ideas were not readily accepted by orthodox military thinkers in the USA, but despite many hardships and the odd court-martial he proved that he was right. In England, both Winston Churchill and "Bomber" Harris shared a vision of the efficacy of true strategic air power!
That vision was also shared by one man whose foresight might have changed the fortunes of the Luftwaffe. Major-General Wever had plans to produce four engined bombers as early as 1935 capable of carrying large bomb loads from German bases as far as the north of Scotland. The Dornier 19 had four 650hp radial engines and a top speed of 200mph and a range of almost 1000 miles. The Junkers 89 had four 960hp engines and a top speed of 245mph and similar range. However, Wever was killed in a flying accident in 1936 before his plans became concrete. In 1937 Kesselring was forced to sign the order to cancel the Do19 and Ju89 by Goring who knew that they could produce three twin engined bombers for the same time and cost as two four-engined bombers. He was quoted as saying "The Fuhrer will ask not how big the bombers are, but how many there are!" such was the fate of Germany's strategic bomber fleet.
Germany had lost the only man with the vision and ability to change their fortunes, and handed it over to Goring, a man who can (and that is being kind) only be described as incompetent! What would have happened if Wever had not perished in a plane crash, if Mitchell had not persevered, or if Harris had not had Churchill's support? It is almost certain that our history books would be very different than they are today, and perhaps they would not even be written in the same language.
Badboy
-
Basically, yes that's wrong.
The idea that the RAF came close to defeat is very dramatic and the concept of the "narrow margin" has more to do with dramatisation and common misconceptions than reality. The simple fact is that both RAF pilot and aircraft numbers were not reduced during the Battle of Britain. This was partly due to the success of Beaverbrook in his first months as Minister of Aircraft Production. He inherited a favourable upward swing, but his ruthless improvisation considerably fortified this. The so-called Harrogate Programme of January 1940 provided for a year’s output of 3,602 fighters (very precise). The total achieved was 4,283, which meant that nearly 352 fighters a month were forthcoming over the crucial summer and autumn months. The German output during the same period was barely half that.
...
Thank you for the explanation. After the first few posts, I wondered if the dire straits of the RAF were exagerrated to drum up support or to ridicule the decision making of the German commanders. Seems that a lot of the history I read 30 years ago has been refined a bit as more information has become available.
:salute
-
Britain , Britain , Britain
Good point, I can get twice or three times as many kills in a Spit 5 vs. the 109F. 109F just isn't powerful enough compared to the Spit 5.
-
Here is a little more . "What if" Rommel was a corps command in Army group G ,<Quick Hienz Guerdians Unit in the first phase of Russian campaign> in Africa . Imagine a German force composed of 3 or more Panzer Corps . Plus a few dozen Infantry Corps . They take the Suez canal take the middle east , the near east . Then you have them threatening the Russians on two fronts . What would the loss of the Suez canal done to the British Empire . Little scary isn't it ?
-
good points furball and badboy :aok
answer in short,
Britain, and of course the crazy poles and all the other members of The Few! :salute
-
Germany had a tactical bombing force, supplemented by twin engine medium bombers that could take on the role of a strategic bomber but could not do that well.
Compare that to the combined might of a strategic bombing force of the United States and GB that (with the exception of oil/fuel) could not bring Germany to its knees solely on the bombing alone in almost 5 years of bombing. The Allies had to send in ground troops, aircraft cannot take occupy land.
That said, the Naval Arm of Germany wasn't at all prepared for a cross channel invasion, and the naval might of GB was superior to begin with.
Germany could of succeeded in invading GB if;
1. Germany had isolated GB from supplies, via the U-Boat campaign.
2. Germany had maintained a strict anti-naval campaign which forced the Brits to move all their sea assets north, no less than 1-2 days travel from the Channel.
3. Germany had maintained a airfield attack plan which forced all of GBs aircraft assets north of London.
4. Germany had crushed the will of the people, or convinced them of Germanys ability to see to the populaces needs better than their government of GB prior to the crossing of the channel.
5. The Germans had a plan like 'Fortitude' to give their invasion 24-36 hours of free reign.
6. Germany could maintain peace with Russia; the amount of men needed to occupy GB, Africa, France and the rest of Europe would of crippled any chance of a Russian campaign.
-
I hear this kind of stuff from the Brits all the time...face it, bombing was the only kind of offensive you guys
could mount in 42. The allies were in major "backup" mode till 6/42. That's all of them, US, UK and USSR.
Even after Midway, the big switch to offense didn't start till early 43 after Stalingrad.
"Hear this stuff"? What exactly in my post is the "stuff" that you "hear"? I said Britain being free enabled the liberation of Europe, i said this because by just being there meant that the allies had a whacking great big unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
The only offensive land operations we could do during that time was North Africa. I have gone over already what i said about saving ourselves.
-
The problem is, like so many "what-if"s, every single point both Furball and Badboy mentions is casually based upon the results and outcome already decided through actual course of history - hindsight on what caused the German failure is already presupposed. I can probably come up with as credible suppositions refuting every single point mentioned, but like said, its basically meaningless to do so because in the end, what-ifs are basically the same thing as fiction. You can make things up anyway you want.
Its basically a thought-experiment with some logic and a lot of wishful thinking for both sides of the debate.
Yeah, its fun and interesting, but ultimately a waste of time and a great way to make people fight over nothing.
-
The problem is, like so many "what-if"s, every single point both Furball and Badboy mentions is casually based upon the results and outcome already decided through actual course of history - hindsight on what caused the German failure is already presupposed. I can probably come up with as credible suppositions refuting every single point mentioned, but like said, its basically meaningless to do so because in the end, what-ifs are basically the same thing as fiction. You can make things up anyway you want.
Its basically a thought-experiment with some logic and a lot of wishful thinking for both sides of the debate.
Yeah, its fun and interesting, but ultimately a waste of time and a great way to make people fight over nothing.
Is your name taken from 'Kielbasa'?
Badboy! You make me wish I took those debating classes in high school! :D I rest my case.
S!
-
YOu need to take the med into this equation. The Germans had their paratrooper force butchered at Crete, - it would have been a key force in a "Sealion II" operation.
But...Britain I'd say. LW coming up in daylight with the RAF much stronger and having learned their lesson would mean "B" as in Britain...and Butchery :t
-
So true. Crete was a graveyard for the German paratroopers.
-
i've never bought the BOB lost by LW transferring from airfields to London thing. airfields in 1940 were pretty simple - grass strips and trucks for rearm and refuel. In 1940 in Oxfordshire alone, there were 30 fields capable of deploying fighters. the LW could have spent forever bombing airfields with hardly any dent in RAF operational effectiveness.
-
i've never bought the BOB lost by LW transferring from airfields to London thing. airfields in 1940 were pretty simple - grass strips and trucks for rearm and refuel. In 1940 in Oxfordshire alone, there were 30 fields capable of deploying fighters. the LW could have spent forever bombing airfields with hardly any dent in RAF operational effectiveness.
Didnt the attack on the airfields include strafing planes on the ground? If so, if that was kept up wouldn't losses exceed production?
Again.. just speculation.
-
Didnt the attack on the airfields include strafing planes on the ground? If so, if that was kept up wouldn't losses exceed production?
Again.. just speculation.
At first the Luftwaffe attacked radar stations and airfields. Although the Luftwaffe lost more planes than the RAF, by the 31 August the RAF was at its last gasp – in the previous fortnight the RAF had lost 295 planes destroyed and 170 damaged, 103 pilots killed and 128 wounded. Flying five or more ‘sorties’ a day, the young British fighter pilots (nicknamed ‘Dowding’s chicks’) were becoming exhausted; more importantly, the RAF was not training new pilots as fast the pilots were being killed. The weekend 30-31 August was the worst weekend of the battle for the RAF, with 65 fighters destroyed and 6 of the seven sector stations in the vital south-east Group out of action.
Just as Fighter Command was about to collapse, however, a miracle happened. On 24 August, by accident, some Luftwaffe bombers had dropped their bombs on London. The next few nights, the RAF replied by bombing Berlin. Hitler was angry. On 2 September he ordered his bombers to attack London. On 7 September the Nazi bombing raid was so huge that a false alarm went round the south-east of England: code-word ‘Cromwell’ – invasion imminent. Church bells rang and the Home Guard mobilised. It was not known at the time but one section of coast identified by the Nazis as a landing ground was defended by a Home Guard platoon with just one machine-gun!
Hitler’s decision to stop attacking the RAF gave it time to recover. On 15 September, the Luftwaffe came by day in huge numbers. It expected to sweep the RAF from the skies. But the RAF fought them off. At one point every British plane was in the sky – soon, some would have to come in to refuel and there were no reserves to protect them. But the Luftwaffe, too, was at the limit and – just in time – it turned back.
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm
In all, the RAF lost 1,173 planes and 510 pilots and gunners killed in the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe lost 1,733 planes and 3,368 airmen killed or captured. If the Luftwaffe had succeeded, Britain would have been invaded and conquered. But the RAF held out, and Britain survived.
-
Although the Luftwaffe lost more planes than the RAF, by the 31 August the RAF was at its last gasp
http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm
Once again, a very dramatic statement and common misconception that probably originates from primary Luftwaffe sources, that seem to be used to add drama to the event. This is possible because the Luftwaffe assumed the RAF was at its last gasp, and had been getting there for some time. General Stapf had reported to Halder on 30 August that the British had lost 800 Hurricanes and Spitfires since 8 August out of a frontline strength of 915. Given the intelligence reports on the RAF from Oberst Beppo Schmid, whose estimate of their production capacity of 200 to 300 a month, the British could therefore only have 300 to 400 left at the outside. After another week of pounding in September, they must indeed be down to their last 200 aircraft.
In fact, that was very far from the truth. Up to date and accurate figures show that on the evening of 6 September, Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots available to it, 950 of whom flew Spitfires or Hurricanes. It needed 1,588 pilots to be at full establishment, which is of course what Dowding wanted, so from his point of view he was 200 short and he was very vocal at the time about his concerns.
Because of that, there are many who believe that Fighter Command was on its knees after the attacks on the airfields. However it was a strange way of kneeling. Taking the worst scenario of no increase in output from the training units, and if the Luftwaffe had continued its attacks on the airfields and continued to destroy aircraft in the air at the most favourable rate it ever achieved, there would still have been about 725 Hurricanes and Spitfires ready to take to the air in the third week of September... Hardly a last gasp!
When you consider that Schmid's estimate of the RAF fighter strength for July was 675 serviceable frontline fighters, the RAF actually had more fighters available at the point when it was assumed they were at their last gasp, than the Germans thought they had at the beginning of the Battle. When the Germans thought the RAF would be down to their last 200 aircraft, they actually had almost four times that many.
One of the reasons there are so many misconception about the Battle is that books were being published almost as soon as it was over, the first appearing early in 1941, when accurate figures were not available. Since then there has been a constant stream of publications about the Battle expressing many different interpretations of the information available at the time. It is inevitable that the most dramatic and most popular interpretations are the ones that get repeated and rehashed most frequently. However, we are only recently seeing documents made available by the public records office and new information has been coming to light. There has been considerable rethinking over recent years and if you want to gain further insight into the Battle, read some of the more recent publications. Two I could recommend off the cuff are:
- The Most Dangerous Enemy, a History of the Battle of Britain by Stephen Bungay, 2000
- The Battle of Britain, Victory or Defeat by J.E.G Dixon, 2003
Both titles explode some of the myths and misconceptions, as well as exposing some of the scandals of the time. There is certainly some sensationalism and controversy, but the facts and figures are the most accurate and up to date as can be.
Badboy
-
Didnt the attack on the airfields include strafing planes on the ground? If so, if that was kept up wouldn't losses exceed production?
Again.. just speculation.
You might think that, given that one of the Luftwaffe’s prime goals was to catch aircraft on the ground, the rarity of such cases is a real tribute to the efficiency of the defences and the watchfulness of Park’s controllers. In Poland and France, the Luftwaffe had been used to finding lines of aircraft parked on runways. The RAF’s policy of dispersing planes round an airfield perimeter, and protecting them with the simple but effective E-shaped blast pens Dowding had ordered in 1938, meant that even if the planes were on the ground, a direct hit was needed to destroy each machine. The Luftwaffe’s happy days of gaining air superiority in a few hours were not to come again until June 1941, when the Russians offered them even longer rows of aircraft lined up as if for target practice, and they wiped out thousands of them before they even took off.
People were killed on the ground, but the numbers were surprisingly small. The Kenley raid cost nine dead. The thirty-nine killed at Biggin Hill on the 30th was the worst single incident, and an unlucky one. By and large, the protection afforded to ground staff was effective.
Badboy
-
So who would win :salute
everybody knows the outcome of the Battle of Britain in August 1940. But if it wasn't for Hitler switching his attention to Russia in 1941 there would have been a round 2. So here is my question, and point of discussion: if a second Battle of Britain commenced in the summer of 1941 would the Germans have won? (And by that I mean gained and maintained air superiority over southern England and the English Channel) The luftwaffe would have been equipped with the BF109F, and the RAF with the Spitfire Mk5, so there is an entire discussion regarding the relative merits of those two planes against each other, and of course let us not forget about the hurricane.
But there would be many other factors, some subtle and some obvious that could affect the outcome greatly. Perhaps the most significant of this would be the simple addition of long-range fuel tanks for the 109s. They lacked these in 1940 and only had a matter of minutes of the South England before they had to return to base. If this was addressed in 1941 this would have been a significant force multiplier. But that should be counterbalanced against the increased RAF fight production and pilot training that was on line by 1941 and also the adoption luftwaffe fighter tactics.
So who would win?
SkyRock would own both sides and rub it in on vox :P
-
If the Luftwaffe had succeeded, Britain would have been invaded and conquered. But the RAF held out, and Britain survived.
This is factually false.
If the RAF had faltered they simply would have pulled back out of the German range with their surviving forces and when the Germans tried to invade, the Royal Navy, covered by the remaining RAF fighters, would have slammed the door shut. The Germans had nothing capable of stopping the Royal Navy's cruisers and battleships from anniliating the invasion barges and cutting the supply lines.
Every simulation of a German invasion ends in failure and the British inventorying their newly captured tanks and guns.
The Germans had no viable way of taking England.
-
I've often wondered though, if whether the Germans had put troops, any troops, on the ground in southern England immediately after Dunkirk, whether Churchill would still have been able to resist calls from within the cabinet to accept terms.
<shrug> coulda woulda shoulda
-
I've recent read a book about the American "Eagle" Squadrons during the BoB. "The Few" by Alex Kershaw. Very good book about the insight of American pilots that flew for the RAF in 1940. I'm also currently reading a book by Peter Townsend "Duel of Eagles".
From what I've read by Townsend, there appeared to be a power struggle within the German ranks starting as early as 1938. I believe that the combination of the German offensive loosing it's direction and the brave pilots of the RAF amounted to the British winning the BoB.
<S>
-
Germany probably did not need to land troops,what she did need to do was to almost totally destroy the RAF to a point were the Luftwaffe could fly freely through British airspace without any significant resistance from British fighters.
Once achieved it's unlikely the Churchill administration would have held,and Halifax would have sued for peace.Having failed to maintain air superiority,those in the Halifax camp would have been able to force a change in leadership.
Halifax was in peace negotiations with Goering-through Sweden-even as the battle was starting.Churchill only just hung on to power in 1942,and of course lost it in 1945.
It took the combined strategic bomber commands of Britain and the USA,from august 1942 till May 1944 to bring the Luftwaffe to it's knees.
So victory would be both unlikely, and costly,for Germany.
-
The RAF wasn't on its last legs. But 11th group was in serious trouble. 13th group was almost idle, and 12th group didn't get into the real business before September or so...
The LW did get into serious trouble though. When the focused on London, they plonked almost every 109 down in the same sector, - facing 11th group, since more distance to the west left them out of that area. So, they were upping up to 3 fighters for every bomber.
But, another 20 minutes on the plotting table was vital for fighter command, and it gave 12th and some of 10th group the time needed to intercept.
In short, when both opponents went as big as possible, the blood started running faster out of the LW.
(Well, possible is maybe not the right word for the RAF, for they still had several squadrons absolutely out of reach)
And as for pilot training, pilots being trained in the BoB were sometimes not in combat before the fall of 1941....
-
BTW, Somewhere I have a list of lost aircraft in the BoB, within a certain timeframe, and air-to-air.
It was the result of some 20 years or more, of work.
It left the RAF somewhere near the 900 and the LW at some odd 1200.
These were all supposed to be absolutely confirmed, so the numbers wouldn't get any smaller.
I am not sure how much has come out of the LW loss archives, but as far as I have experienced they are nowhere as complete as the RAF ones. Well, Germany got run over in the end, and the UK didn't....
-
Of course this subject. I think that we can look at this and find out what the chances were. I will show the possibilities if everything went right.
1. Germany had a much higher production CAPACITY we will assume that somehow hitler got convinced to go into war time production after france and Britain declared war. effect of this the loss of AIRCRAFT does not matter to the luftwaffe they can easily produce enough to keep their pilots supplied advantage:Germany
2. germany can train pilots to make up for losses in pilots that Britain has a hard time replacing but britain can keep pilots that bail because they are recoverable after they bail. advantage: tie
3. if Goering simply would have just kept pounding the RAF instead of attacking london he would have won. Also it would have been a smart move to pound the British radar too. He had every advantage more pilots better aircraft(the spitfire only made up a small part of the RAF at this time and hurricanes really shouldered most of the work) and numbers. The only thing the RAF really had was radar. With this they could concentrate their forces where the germans were. The germans could have done many smaller raids that would cover more area instead of large assualts that would spread the RAF thin were their numbers would be an advantage. final: German hold a 70% to 30% advantage in my opinion.
On a side note: The germans had a naval production plan to give them a navy comparable to the british one by 1944-45. If Hitler would have waited to attack Poland til 1944 or 45 the war would have taken a much different perspective and if the Germans would have forced France to give her her navy Germany would have the best airforce army and navy in the world a absolutely unstoppable force.
-
3. As round 2 continued, the US would have entered the war and come to Britan's aid.
LOL you gotta be kidding......
USA only thought about itself, and stayed well out of the "war" at least as a country untill 1942....
-
LOL you gotta be kidding......
USA only thought about itself, and stayed well out of the "war" at least as a country untill 1942....
uumm...didn't slapshot bring up the fact that we gave you all types of food, supplies, etc. we shipped them in convoys, which the germans tried to stop with uboats. that i think played a large part in englands survival too.......
-
uumm...didn't slapshot bring up the fact that we gave you all types of food, supplies, etc. we shipped them in convoys, which the germans tried to stop with uboats. that i think played a large part in englands survival too.......
I would use the word gave lightly, sold.
-
I would use the word gave lightly, sold.
Exactly......and paid in full as of last year.......the only country ever to pay it's war debt in full. However you must remember America had a law that stopped it joining in earlier than it did. America was on our side spiritually but commerce had no real loyalties.....look at the banking system
-
uumm...didn't slapshot bring up the fact that we gave you all types of food, supplies, etc. we shipped them in convoys, which the germans tried to stop with uboats. that i think played a large part in englands survival too.......
Don't forget machinery to produce planes and advanced equipment, and also more sophisticated equipment in its time such as cockpit intrumentation etc.
Yes, the U.S of A provided a lot of those too. But I wouldn't say it was just a gift.
-
Man, this is fun to watch.
Allied buggers slugging fists at each other :D
I'm off to get a bowl of popcorn... :D :D :D
-
Hehe, make that a large one.
To correct all misunderstanding, here are a few facts. In no organized order.
1. It wasn't Germany vs the UK, it was the Axis vs the UK, Germany and Italy.
2. On the sideline, there was the USSR who traded goods with the Axis.
3. On the other sideline was the USA who traded goods with many, but couldn't trade with the Axis for the mere reason that the RN made the transport impossible. The USA had the UK pay in gold, give away naval bases and blueprints etc before delivering goods, which to quite an extent were obsolete although useful.
4. The Axis had much more materials than Britain during the BoB in most fields. Not all perhaps. Don't forget the UK's colonies.
5. The convoys bringing goods in 1940 to the UK were British, and a lot of Norwegian as well.
6. Some of the U.S. stuff was more sophisticated than the UK, and some not. Look at the U.S. frontline fighters in the spring of 1940....then compare them again in the spring of 1942....and there's more...In short, - both ways.
7. The lend-lease pact with the British went through with just a few votes difference, although being hotly supported by the president.
8. Many major figures in the U.S. political and military/aviation life had the opinion that Britain was not the horse to put your money on. That includes old Kennedy, and Charles Lindberg.
9. The first convoys to come to the Soviets aid were British. In fact they probably were at sea before the USA joined the war.
10. Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.
How far are you with the popcorn ?
:devil
-
I would use the word gave lightly, sold.
sold, gave, lent....any way ya slice it they needed it.
-
Man, this is fun to watch.
Allied buggers slugging fists at each other :D
I'm off to get a bowl of popcorn... :D :D :D
:rofl
-
we needed dental healthcare, you didn't give us that did you.
-
:lol
-
we needed dental healthcare, you didn't give us that did you.
nope. wasn't necessary. what were ya gonna do? bit em when they landed on your beaches? :D
-
It would be nice to have the option.:D
-
Errrrm, Yep - we might (just might) have lost the battle - but the buggers wouldnt be breeding afterwards. :D
(Sorry, I just had to)
Wurzel
-
:rofl
Anyway, the Brits won the BoB without american aid. The lend-lease contract was in 1941.....
Unless if you count business as aid.
BTW, when the British occupied Iceland in may 1940, there was only one place to sell fish to...Britain. And they needed a lot of workers from day one.
They paid in full :aok
-
It would be nice to have the option.:D
:rofl :aok
-
:rofl
Anyway, the Brits won the BoB without american aid. The lend-lease contract was in 1941.....
Unless if you count business as aid.
BTW, when the British occupied Iceland in may 1940, there was only one place to sell fish to...Britain. And they needed a lot of workers from day one.
They paid in full :aok
I'm not sure thats true.
Watch some documentaries, where in numerous ones they state that spitfires, hurri's etc were partly manufactured on american equipment shipped in, and individual plane components were as well.
-
AFAIK mossies were constructed from US-produced, Canadian-sourced ply, but Spits and Hurris were produced entirely within the UK.
-
I'm not sure thats true.
Watch some documentaries, where in numerous ones they state that spitfires, hurri's etc were partly manufactured on american equipment shipped in, and individual plane components were as well.
i'm pretty sure it's not true. it seems kinda funny, that 50-60 years aftert the fact, that new information ""surfaces"" stating that britain was never in trouble.
c'mon. outnumbered, but not outclassed, in london, the civilians needed to go underground, everything was rationed, you had supplies comming from all over the world, including the usa, and were losing pilots almost faster than new ones could be trained. one of those links mentioned a day that all RAF fighters were airborn.
although it was after the BOB, i also don';t think germany would've fallen without the constant 24/7 airraids, which england could not have sustained without the help of the mighty 8th air force.
i have however wondered why usa went for daytime raids and uk went for night time.....i had heard in the past that it had to do with the lancs being not well enough protected?
-
AFAIK mossies were constructed from US-produced, Canadian-sourced ply, but Spits and Hurris were produced entirely within the UK.
yes, with aluminum bought from civilians i think?
i hadn't known about the wood for the mossies being usa or canadian supplied though?
-
Cap, thought this was the Battle of Britain one, not would Britain have won the war on its own one...... ;)
Nope, we couldnt have prosecuted the war to a satisfactory conclusion all alone - but we won the BOB!!!
:D
Wurzel
-
aluminium pans etc were donated for aircraft, and practically every wrough iron railing in the country was cut down for steel too. If you walk around suburban areas you can still see the stubs on top of walls where they were chopped off (this wasn't optional!)
CAP its not new evidence surfacing, as much as trying to redress the inbalance caused by the Hollywood version of WWII, in which we Brits dont feature at all apparently :(
-
Cap, thought this was the Battle of Britain one, not would Britain have won the war on its own one...... ;)
Nope, we couldnt have prosecuted the war to a satisfactory conclusion all alone - but we won the BOB!!!
:D
Wurzel
well, it's made it 7 pages without an attempted hijack, so i felt it was my duty to try :rofl :aok
-
aluminium pans etc were donated for aircraft, and practically every wrough iron railing in the country was cut down for steel too. If you walk around suburban areas you can still see the stubs on top of walls where they were chopped off (this wasn't optional!)
CAP its not new evidence surfacing, as much as trying to redress the inbalance caused by the Hollywood version of WWII, in which we Brits dont feature at all apparently :(
well, i wasn't going by the hollywood version. i had actuslly thought the movie sucked...the combat scenes sucked..they were all almost the same but from different angles. i did however go to the library a lot as a teen, and read everythning i could find. that's what i was going from.
i still find it hard to believe that 60 years later new evidence surfaces.
it's kinda like finding new evidence that charles manson is innocent. :D
-
well, it's made it 7 pages without an attempted hijack, so i felt it was my duty to try :rofl :aok
Monkeys can hijack better than that.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMc_HJO0RU&feature=related
I think this video is relevant
-
Monkeys can hijack better than that.
:huh :rofl
-
I'm not sure thats true.
Watch some documentaries, where in numerous ones they state that spitfires, hurri's etc were partly manufactured on american equipment shipped in, and individual plane components were as well.
The Hurricane was rigged from the old biplane technology, and the Merlin was English allright.
But of course the Brits may have bought tools. BTW, the USA got the blueprints though....
And while you find sources for the claim, I'll find the votes and dates for the lend-lease deal, - agreed by a margin long after the BoB ended......
How's the popcorn going?
-
The Hurricane was rigged from the old biplane technology, and the Merlin was English allright.
But of course the Brits may have bought tools. BTW, the USA got the blueprints though....
And while you find sources for the claim, I'll find the votes and dates for the lend-lease deal, - agreed by a margin long after the BoB ended......
How's the popcorn going?
as question on the hurricane?
i had read in the past that the hurri was actually more of the RAF's backbone than the spit? and that the spit, being a better looking aircraft, got more credit than it should have?
oo...i dont eat popcorn,...hate it getting stuck between my teeth :rofl
-
The popcorn quote was for another one.
As for the BoB and the Hurricane, well it was performancevise inferior to both the Spit and the 109. But it was more numerous, quite rugged, and a good gun platform, and the RAF used it as such.
If possible, the Spitfires were to deal with the escorts, - the more deadly deal.
The Spitfire did indeed get the "flash", but it served well, and was to become the absolute backbone of fighter command.
-
One of the documentaries I watched stated that initially a lot of the instrumentation panel for the spitfire was actually american, and a lot of the tools used to manufacture parts in britain were also US made and being imported after the war broke out.
I'm not going to look for the sources as I really do not feel its necessary to back this up. To me it really doesn't make a difference. I'm glad the Brits and Poles, and the Czech's and many others kicked German arse. Otherwise I would be speaking their horrid language.
We don't want that, do we? :D
-
One of the documentaries I watched stated that initially a lot of the instrumentation panel for the spitfire was actually american, and a lot of the tools used to manufacture parts in britain were also US made and being imported after the war broke out.
I'm not going to look for the sources as I really do not feel its necessary to back this up. To me it really doesn't make a difference. I'm glad the Brits and Poles, and the Czech's and many others kicked German arse. Otherwise I would be speaking their horrid language.
We don't want that, do we? :D
The Poles smuggled the Enigma machine out in pieces. Shhhh, let's not forget about the Poles being ignored in another BoB thread. I count about 7 times in 6 years.
-
The Poles smuggled the Enigma machine out in pieces. Shhhh, let's not forget about the Poles being ignored in another BoB thread. I count about 7 times in 6 years.
nonono...look back a few pages..they were mentioned i think. they got honors for being hard to understand on the radio :D :noid
-
The popcorn quote was for another one.
As for the BoB and the Hurricane, well it was performancevise inferior to both the Spit and the 109. But it was more numerous, quite rugged, and a good gun platform, and the RAF used it as such.
If possible, the Spitfires were to deal with the escorts, - the more deadly deal.
The Spitfire did indeed get the "flash", but it served well, and was to become the absolute backbone of fighter command.
Take the Kosciuszko Squadron. In the 6 weeks of the BoB, they racked up 127 victories, the most of ANY RAF squadron in the BoB. They lost 17 Hurricanes.
The Hurricane was all they needed.
spokojny, pewny przywódca.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Witold_Urbanowicz.jpg)
-
Take the Kosciuszko Squadron. In the 6 weeks of the BoB, they racked up 127 victories, the most of ANY RAF squadron in the BoB. They lost 17 Hurricanes.
The Hurricane was all they needed.
spokojny, pewny przywódca.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Witold_Urbanowicz.jpg)
Impressive knowledge about the history of the Polish Air Force!
Who are you Karaya? :)
-
Impressive knowledge about the history of the Polish Air Force!
Who are you Karaya? :)
Someone who is part Polish in ancestry and doesn't know much. :D
-
In conclusion,
It's not so much a question of whether BoB would have been lost without American help, it's more of a question would they have one was it not for the foreign pilots who made up a vast part of their air force, who were fighting for your British freedom, and their own.
I think not.
I'm also of the school of thinking that given only hurricanes, the collective hatred of the enemy and determination of members of the RAF, the LW would have been beaten anyway. I do not think the will of the British people would have been broken, not until the germans would have been marching in their tens of thousands through the streets of London.
-
Call me silly, but I'd much rather have a combo of Spitfires and Hurricanes than just Hurricanes.
BTW what Polish squadron was this? 303? 127LW vs 17 Hurricanes is to say no less, quite embarassing for the LW :D
BTW Gunther Rall was a BoB pilot, or pre-eagleday actually. His squadron was pulled out after only a week of fighting due to heavy losses. I wonder who the opponents were, the only thing I know is that they were Spitfires and they knew the ropes...
-
In conclusion,
It's not so much a question of whether BoB would have been lost without American help, it's more of a question would they have one was it not for the foreign pilots who made up a vast part of their air force, who were fighting for your British freedom, and their own.
I think not.
I'm also of the school of thinking that given only hurricanes, the collective hatred of the enemy and determination of members of the RAF, the LW would have been beaten anyway. I do not think the will of the British people would have been broken, not until the germans would have been marching in their tens of thousands through the streets of London.
Vast? It was a greatly needed and welcome contribution, but the vast majority were British. This is from the Battle of Britain Historical Society: -
This "Roll of Honour" contains the 2,936 names of all those aircrew that served with RAF Fighter Command between the dates of July 10th and October 31st 1940, the official period known as the Battle of Britain. Each one of those 2,936 British and Allied airmen were awarded the Battle of Britain clasp for having flown at least one authorised sortie with an accredited unit of RAF Fighter Command.
Great Britain - 2,340
Australia - 32
Barbados - 1
Belgium - 28
Canada - 112
Czechoslovakia - 89
France - 13
Ireland - 10
Jamaica - 1
Newfoundland - 1
New Zealand - 127
Poland - 145
Rhodesia - 3
South Africa - 25
United States - 9
The Polish brought with them experience which was really needed. I think it is a shame that the Canadian and ANZAC contributions are so often overlooked.
-
Someone who is part Polish in ancestry and doesn't know much. :D
:aok
(BTW, the picture of the Polish Pilot is Witold Urbanowicz. One of the few pilots to fly with 4 air forces in WWII. The Polish, French, British, and American. Urbanowicz also flew against the Japanese with the Flying Tigers. He has two Japanese kills to his credit)
I don't know that much either. :D
-
A 20 kill ace! Very impressive!
-
Witold Urbanowicz :salute
Talk about a man fighting for freedom, no matter what armed force he had to join.
-
Hehe, his first victim was a Russian, in 1939.
It was a pleasure to get to know about him. I knew that Skalsky had quite a go, but this one was unknown to me. Anything more on him?
-
Hehe, his first victim was a Russian, in 1939.
It was a pleasure to get to know about him. I knew that Skalsky had quite a go, but this one was unknown to me. Anything more on him?
ya know what i just found? check this link out about douglas bader. i had forgotten, but i read his book when i was a kid......impressive man......http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/bader/bader.htm
-
Hehe, his first victim was a Russian, in 1939.
It was a pleasure to get to know about him. I knew that Skalsky had quite a go, but this one was unknown to me. Anything more on him?
hey..now a question...pure curiouosity.......we all know germany's top ace was eric hartmann(352 kills i think?), and the usa's top ace was richard bong(40 kills)
who was great britain's top ace? or any of the other countries in ww2?
should i duck since this is sorta kinda a hijack? :noid :noid
-
"For Your Freedom and Ours" is a good book about the Poles in the second world war.
Johnny Johnson was the top RAF ace in the ETO with 38 i believe. Though Marmaduke "Pat" Pattle is believed to have 50 victories in the gladiator and hurricane, his records were destroyed in the evacuation of greece '41.
-
They have been put together in Chris Shores "Aces High". About 50, some 15 in a bipe.
However Pattle scored a lot in the med.
The Brits had a good system IMHO, once the pilots had learned the ropes, the experienced ones were sent off as instructors at home. So the scores never went that high as in Germany, but the outcome was a winning one. Germany had their pilots fighting until they fell, and pilot experience as an average declined from '40 onwards, while the Brits built up a very well trained force.
So it was...
-
The Brits had a good system IMHO, once the pilots had learned the ropes, the experienced ones were sent off as instructors at home. So the scores never went that high as in Germany, but the outcome was a winning one. Germany had their pilots fighting until they fell, and pilot experience as an average declined from '40 onwards, while the Brits built up a very well trained force.
So it was...
and the above is most likely what played the largest part in great britain surviving.
-
"For Your Freedom and Ours" is a good book about the Poles in the second world war.
This is a fantasic book! It made me realize the struggle that not only the Polish, but all RAF pilots had at the onset of the BoB. A must read for any WWII history buff.
Here's another view into the expertise of the Polish pilots:
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff186/obie303/imgage-13.jpg)
"On September 12, 1939, Lt. Jan Falkowski, an instructor at the Polish Aviation Training Center, was flying a PWS 26 from Lublin to Sokal when three Messerschmitt Bf109 fighters spotted his fabric-covered biplane. Anticipating an easy victory, the three Germans promptly attacked. It was a big mistake. Fully aerobatic, the PWS was one of the finest trainers in pre-war Europe. With Lt. Falkowski at the controls, the three Germans received a "master class" in the art of dogfighting. In a remarkable exhibition of flying skill, Lt. Falkowski outmaneuvered the advanced Bf109s, causing one to crash in flames and the others to withdraw in frustration."
Jan was a member of the 303rd squadron and finished the BoB with 9.5 victories. He wrote a book, "With the Wind In My Face" about his experience about the war. Jan passed away in 2001.
-
Excellent book on the subject debunking the RAF's role in preventing a German invasion, whilst remaining very respectful of their contribution:
http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-1940-Battle-Britain-Hitler/dp/0786716185/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217377003&sr=8-4 (http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-1940-Battle-Britain-Hitler/dp/0786716185/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217377003&sr=8-4)
Robinson's fictional works are also excellent - 'A Piece of Cake' in particular. My handle comes from a character in 'Goshawk Squadron'.
-
"In a remarkable exhibition of flying skill, Lt. Falkowski outmaneuvered the advanced Bf109s, causing one to crash in flames and the others to withdraw in frustration"
Hehe, greedy vulchers.
Did that once in AH I was out of ammo and light on fuel when I was bounced :t
As a sidenote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbcFsUtqRpM&feature=related
Enjoy ;)
-
As a sidenote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbcFsUtqRpM&feature=related
Enjoy ;)
Great movie - thanks for reminding me, I must grab a copy.
-
My favourite one actually. And the missus saw it twice already ;)
-
More...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5E4YCYvCIU&feature=related
More (direct voice account)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaF_wTXZ72g&feature=related
Now, the Poles were...aggressive :D Repeat please ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related
-
And more...stolen from Galland though.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjz8pAGRvsg&NR=1
-
BTW, a 1941 Scenery would have the same LW bombers, and no more aiming technology (since their beams had partially been tackled with, and the curvature of the earth...is the curvature of the earth, no matter the year). Their opponent would in 1941 frequently have been cannon armed, and the majority Spits this time.
So, for an AH BOBII Scenario, the Plane setup would be close to RAF with Spit V, Hurry IIC and some Bostons for countermeasure, While the LW's only change would be 109F instead of the Emil.
BTW, out of the top of my head, LW launched less to similar airborne strength in Barbarossa than in 1940 at Britain. So, no Barbarossa, and you'd be working with a bigger BoB on both sides.
-
Great stuff Angus. :aok
-
This should be the theme music to AH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZJdRRN3dOQ
-
Britain with ease i think.
As Bald rightly said - Germany lacked any effective bombers.
But also: -
- The RAF was using cannon in 1941 which would have made downing bombers much easier
- The RAF pilots had a lot more experience
- Better equipment
- Better tactics
- Better defences
- Better production
- Better training for new pilots
- A hugely more effective bomber force - including Stirlings, Manchesters, Mosquitoes and Halifaxes
I don't think the Germans would have stood a chance at all.
Not so fast Furball...
- The RAF was using cannon in 1941 which would have made downing bombers much easier
So was the Luftwaffe
- The RAF pilots had a lot more experience
Not really... the core of the Luftwaffe had been fighting since the Spanish civil war
debateable
This one seems like a wash until Hitler and Goering decided to abandon destroying the RAF and destroy London instead
A given since Britian was defending and Germany was attacking
Germany had all of Europe at it's disposal to produce war material... Advantage Germany
- Better training for new pilots
Another wash
- A hugely more effective bomber force - including Stirlings, Manchesters, Mosquitoes and Halifaxes
True... the lack of a true strategic bomber was the Luftwaffe's glaring weakness[/list]
I also believe that Britian would have won round two, because the Luftwaffe was getting it's orders from a pair of maniacs... Hitler and Goering. Round two would not have been necessary if Germany had stuck to the original plan of destroying the RAF and establishing air superiority prior to the commencement of Operation Sea Lion.
As it was the Luftwaffe almost won "round one". There could have been a different outcome if the German leadership had not acted emotionally and changed the original plan in mid-execution after the RAF bombed Berlin.
Home Field Advantage... The Germans probably had a better Air force, but the British were tougher at home.
-
I think you may have misunderstood me, i was talking in terms of 1940 RAF over 1941 RAF, but i will make my responses in red anyway: -
and by the way, it is Britain not Britian.
Not so fast Furball...
- The RAF was using cannon in 1941 which would have made downing bombers much easier
So was the Luftwaffe
Irrelevant - The LW was using it in 1940 too, the RAF prime objective was shooting down bombers, hence my point
- The RAF pilots had a lot more experience
Not really... the core of the Luftwaffe had been fighting since the Spanish civil war
Irrelevant - The RAF had more experience in 1941 than they did in 1940, they were a much better fighting force than they were in 1940
debateable
Not debateable - the RAF had better aircraft, better guns, better fuel (iirc) in 1941 plus all of the lessons and tricks learned from 1940
This one seems like a wash until Hitler and Goering decided to abandon destroying the RAF and destroy London instead
The RAF's tactics were fine tuned after the battles of 1940 and were much better than they had been at the start of the war
A given since Britian was defending and Germany was attacking
Well, glad you agree with me on something - but again, you have failed to see what i was talking about. I was comparing 1940 to 1941 Britain.
Germany had all of Europe at it's disposal to produce war material... Advantage Germany
Britain had better production than it did at the start of the war. I think you will find (IIRC that is :D) that Britain was easily outproducing Germany at this stage anyway
- Better training for new pilots
Another wash
Well yeah, those BoB vets were training up new RAF pilots
- A hugely more effective bomber force - including Stirlings, Manchesters, Mosquitoes and Halifaxes
True... the lack of a true strategic bomber was the Luftwaffe's glaring weakness
...and the RAF's striking force able to hit back at Germany if they attacked in 1941.[/list]
I also believe that Britian would have won round two, because the Luftwaffe was getting it's orders from a pair of maniacs... Hitler and Goering. Round two would not have been necessary if Germany had stuck to the original plan of destroying the RAF and establishing air superiority prior to the commencement of Operation Sea Lion.
I don't think it would have mattered who was in charge, the British were too strong at that point
As it was the Luftwaffe almost won "round one". There could have been a different outcome if the German leadership had not acted emotionally and changed the original plan in mid-execution after the RAF bombed Berlin.
As said already, the RAF would have moved out of range of the bombers and still been able to inflict heavy losses on them. It wouldnt have taken long for the RN to come down from Scapa Flow to annihilate the German invasion fleets.
Home Field Advantage... The Germans probably had a better Air force, but the British were tougher at home.
I disagree, they were still using the same obselete bombers and only a slightly upgraded 109
-
ooooooo, i'm gonna get flamed for this, but i have to do this.
what do you think would've happened, if there were no polish, canadian, irish, american, or other pilots beside the british? and if we took out all aid recieved(regardless of wether or not it was paid for or lent, or free) from america, and the other countries that contributed to englands defense during the period in question?
what i'm wondering, is if germany should've concentrated more heavily on stopping(or trying to anyway) england from recieving supplies from other countries. what difference would/could that have made? could germany even have done that?
-
Because we are an island we wouldn't have been able to wage war without supplies shipped in from around the world - being an island nation was the reason for such a strong navy. Look at the effect of allied submarines on the Japanese - they did a great job, especially the US submarine crews. Also the British blockade of German ports during the first world war, although there was only one major battle (Jutland) the Royal Navy had a key role in the final surrender.
I don't think the Germans could have completely cut off the UK without a big technology leap in their submarine design. Again one of the key factors in the Battle of the Atlantic was Radar. If ever there was a war winning weapon then that was it IMO.
-
ooooooo, i'm gonna get flamed for this, but i have to do this.
what do you think would've happened, if there were no polish, canadian, irish, american, or other pilots beside the british? and if we took out all aid recieved(regardless of wether or not it was paid for or lent, or free) from america, and the other countries that contributed to englands defense during the period in question?
what i'm wondering, is if germany should've concentrated more heavily on stopping(or trying to anyway) england from recieving supplies from other countries. what difference would/could that have made? could germany even have done that?
Look at furbies list of BoB pilots in 1940...
As far as the German Stranglehold, it did reach it's climax in the subs "happy days" in 1940, then much later on. And Germany concentrated there as well as they could, but could not achieve a stranglehold.
However the RN kept the fingers around the German surface navy allright....
-
I think you may have misunderstood me, i was talking in terms of 1940 RAF over 1941 RAF, but i will make my responses in red anyway: -
and by the way, it is Britain not Britian.
Apologies for the mispelling Furball...
-
Apologies for the mispelling Furball...
That's ok - common thing :)
Pet hate of mine though, i can't help but comment on it. Britian, Brittan, Brittian. British people are worse at it than anyone else!
-
That's ok - common thing :)
Pet hate of mine though, i can't help but comment on it. Britian, Brittan, Brittian. British people are worse at it than anyone else!
Speaking as a lazy yank, I use UK!
<S>
-
Well, you BRITONS :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Kitchener-Britons.jpg)
-
to quote Churchill :
"What a chicken ,what a neck "
-
Geez Angus, that looks like Stalin.
-
If Gen.Rommel had been in charge of the skies,Germany would have quite
possibly owned it. He wasnt part of the "Buffoon" Brigade like the others, and
had a well rounded sense of thinking and planning.190's and 109's would have
been the new "Tigers" that our Tankers dreaded.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8-Sl1CjiM3kJ::czar94.cafe24.com/Special/Gallery/images/rommel1.jpg)
-
(http://i37.tinypic.com/34pf1wz.jpg)
-
If Gen.Rommel had been in charge of the skies,Germany would have quite
possibly owned it. He wasnt part of the "Buffoon" Brigade like the others, and
had a well rounded sense of thinking and planning.190's and 109's would have
been the new "Tigers" that our Tankers dreaded.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8-Sl1CjiM3kJ::czar94.cafe24.com/Special/Gallery/images/rommel1.jpg)
:lol
Yeah because they did such a great job of controlling the air over N Africa.
-
aluminium pans etc were donated for aircraft, and practically every wrough iron railing in the country was cut down for steel too. If you walk around suburban areas you can still see the stubs on top of walls where they were chopped off (this wasn't optional!)
CAP its not new evidence surfacing, as much as trying to redress the inbalance caused by the Hollywood version of WWII, in which we Brits dont feature at all apparently :(
Aww come on now.I saw a bridge to far :D You Brits were in THAT movie.And Patton too. :O
-
Stalin was trying to look like lord Kitchener :D
And BTW, I did down my last and only Spitfire beer with a WW2 RAf Ace :D