Battle of Britain II

[saantana]

didn't they cause a lot of confusion with their accents, and in some cases not knowing english?>

it was the eagle squadrons that won it for them
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.

[Masherbrum]

Britain.
And 308th would have been the best scoring fighter squad, again 
Let the chute killings continue..

That would be the 303rd.   

[APDrone]

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?

[saantana]

That would be the 303rd.   

Darn you Karaya   

[Vudak]

Why is this thread even continuing?
Everyone knows the Battle of Britain was won by Polish Pilots 
And in 1941 or 42, we would be there to greet them again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related

 

[Masherbrum]

Darn you Karaya   

Bracia w broniach.

 

[CAP1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0&feature=related

 

repeat please!!

[crockett]

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.

[saantana]

Bracia w broniach.

 

Za waszą wolność, i naszą 

[saantana]

repeat please!!

 


















 

[CAP1]

sorry, no offense intended.i couldn't resist.....

<<S>>

















 

sorry, no offense intended.i couldn't resist.....

<<S>>

[Badboy]

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

[saantana]

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.

[saantana]

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.

[Furball]

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. 

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