A Battle of Britain debate (1 Viewer)

Not really a yay or nay response from me. They did what they thought would destroy and kill as many german pilots as they could. Many pilots thought it was a good idea and many thought it was not. The whole ethos behind it was to destroy as many german aircraft as they could. It did not matter if they had hit the target or not just to destroy them.

This left some stations a bit thread bare and they are the ones casting doubt on the tactics. speaking from talking to many including Tom on a number of occasions his opinion seems to have changed over the years. Either way, we won they lost so, the tactics were right.

Interesting article and, documentary. I believe its going to be released soon on DVD
Mitch
 
Last edited:
Mitch said:
Not really a yay or nay response from me. They did what they thought would destroy and kill as many german pilots as they could. Many pilots thought it was a good idea and many thought it was not. The whole ethos behind it was to destroy as many german aircraft as they could. It did not matter if they had hit the target or not just to destroy them.

This left some stations a bit thread bare and they are the ones casting doubt on the tactics. speaking from talking to many including Tom on a number of occasions his opinion seems to have changed over the years. Either way, we won they lost so, the tactics were right.

Interesting article and, documentary. I believe its going to be released soon on DVD
Mitch
Click to expand...

Yes I can understand how long this must have taken to organize and yet the effect is obvious. My signature line is from a Luftwaffe pilot who experienced this first hand. Am I right in thinking that less fighters would intercept the Germans on the way in, but would hit them as they turned for home without their escort. Sixty fighters at a time bearing down on you must have indeed been a trouser filling moment.

Rob
 
I think from listening to Bader you can tell just how much he hated the germans and, this was just another tactic he thought would be useful to kill as many as he could. This was pioneering stuff for 1940 air warfare you had to try the stuff and, as happens when you try new stuff some things show that are weak and some show that are strong. There were weaknesses in the theory but, there were also great advantages to it.

One thing thats not to be overlooked is as you say and your signature attests to are the psychological impact this must have had on the arrogance of the germans thinking the RAF was on its knees.
Mitch
 
Mitch said:
I think from listening to Bader you can tell just how much he hated the germans and, this was just another tactic he thought would be useful to kill as many as he could. This was pioneering stuff for 1940 air warfare you had to try the stuff and, as happens when you try new stuff some things show that are weak and some show that are strong. There were weaknesses in the theory but, there were also great advantages to it.

One thing thats not to be overlooked is as you say and your signature attests to are the psychological impact this must have had on the arrogance of the germans thinking the RAF was on its knees.
Mitch
Click to expand...

Mitch,

We can only imagine. Sitting in the biggest target in the sky with your escort long gone it must have felt like forever before crossing the coast again, and any second the most advanced fighter of its age would come roaring down upon you with fifty nine of its friends in tow, no wonder the Luftwaffe pilots/crew began suffering from stress and depression, day after day of that must have killed morale very quickly.

Rob
 
Bader's 'Big Wing' was deeply flawed tactic. Hitting bombers AFTER they had dropped their loads was only effective if it killed Nazi crews or destroyed Nazi aircraft. The Big Wing achieved little compared with the superior tactics of Keith Park and 11 Group (hit them hard in small groups on the way in and keep up the pressure until they eff-off home). Indeed, the Big Wing tactic is essentially what the Luftwaffe was using in the Battle and they were failing miserably.

Leigh-Mallory's and Bader's shafting of the truly great Keith Park was shameful. Park went on to repeat his heroic 'Battle of Britain' success in Malta. Bader spent much of the rest of the war where he couldn't do any more to inflate his ego.

There should be a MASSIVE, permanent statue in gold of Keith Park somewhere in London. Everyone should know Park's name rather than Bader's.
 
Mitch said:
I think from listening to Bader you can tell just how much he hated the germans and, this was just another tactic he thought would be useful to kill as many as he could. This was pioneering stuff for 1940 air warfare you had to try the stuff and, as happens when you try new stuff some things show that are weak and some show that are strong. There were weaknesses in the theory but, there were also great advantages to it.

One thing thats not to be overlooked is as you say and your signature attests to are the psychological impact this must have had on the arrogance of the germans thinking the RAF was on its knees.
Mitch
Click to expand...

Excellent post Mitch, Goering was pretty removed from the action both in mind and body wasn't he, he seemed to disagree with his best Luftwaffe leaders as to the best course of action. I understand he was also far from the front line on many occasions which did not help his grasp of the situation (and how nice to have a conversation without the usual personal agendas being aired:wink2:)

fierytheangelsfell said:
Bader's 'Big Wing' was deeply flawed tactic. Hitting bombers AFTER they had dropped their loads was only effective if it killed Nazi crews or destroyed Nazi aircraft. The Big Wing achieved little compared with the superior tactics of Keith Park and 11 Group (hit them hard in small groups on the way in and keep up the pressure until they eff-off home). Indeed, the Big Wing tactic is essentially what the Luftwaffe was using in the Battle and they were failing miserably.

Leigh-Mallory's and Bader's shafting of the truly great Keith Park was shameful. Park went on to repeat his heroic 'Battle of Britain' success in Malta. Bader spent much of the rest of the war where he couldn't do any more to inflate his ego.

There should be a MASSIVE, permanent statue in gold of Keith Park somewhere in London. Everyone should know Park's name rather than Bader's.
Click to expand...

This is the other very interesting side to the story. On the one hand I don't think anyone doubts Bader's bravery and determination to kill Germans , we do admire him for that, but we can question the tactics of the big wing and whether it worked. Keith Park is well remembered believe me and there is an excellent statue of him just up from Winston Churchill's cabinet war rooms. As I say I don't think disagreeing with the Big wing idea means we have to attack Bader's character, he was a skilled fighter pilot with determination , grit and was personally brave.

It must be said however that the German bombers were very vulnerable as they turned away from London, with no escort they were in trouble, and the more bombers that were brought down obviously the better. I'd like to see comparison figures of the Big wing attacks compared to Keith Parks smaller scale actions.

Rob
 
I think the ego and disagreements between officers in the middle of a war often get blown out of proportion by historians and the arm chair generals (as they are disparagingly called many years later). I think as with any similar group they all believe they have the right idea and, are doing it the best way. Thats what happened with the big wing tactic. Its easy again many years later to state it was flawed or brilliant or, cast clouds over the personel who were involved but, thats not either accurate or, fair in my opinion.

Air warfare at the time was relatively new and, the world had really seen nothing on this type of scale so, obviosly there were going to be tactics that worked and tactics that did not or, were somewhere in between. Ego's grabs for more power and influence are all facets of military life that have existed as long as armies have.

The big wing assisted in the defeat of the german Luftwaffe and, what also assisted was the hard headed men involved like Bader et al that fought. Their ego's and traits that some see as flaws made them what they were and, for me, is not a flaw.

The air combat tactics greatly improved after the BOB but, every avenue had to be addressed in those summer months
Mitch
 
The way I see it the German Luftwaffe initiated the attacks on Britain thinking the whole thing would be over
Sooner than later. The RAF gave their all to defend their people and country. I think the U.S. should have
Immediately entered the war once the Battle of Britain started. It could have prevented enemy bombers from
Even reaching the English coastline through the use of added allied aircraft in the air.It would have been tough to bomb London if the Luftwaffe was shot down over the ocean!
We all know U.S. sentiment prior to pearl harbor as the average American
Citizen wanted no part of entering the war. That being said the RAF got the job done and prevented Operation
Sea Lion from ever happening.
 
PanzerAce1944 said:
The way I see it the German Luftwaffe initiated the attacks on Britain thinking the whole thing would be over
Sooner than later. The RAF gave their all to defend their people and country. I think the U.S. should have
Immediately entered the war once the Battle of Britain started. It could have prevented enemy bombers from
Even reaching the English coastline through the use of added allied aircraft in the air.It would have been tough to bomb London if the Luftwaffe was shot down over the ocean!
We all know U.S. sentiment prior to pearl harbor as the average American
Citizen wanted no part of entering the war. That being said the RAF got the job done and prevented Operation
Sea Lion from ever happening.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, PA, the US was in no state of readiness to have entered the war and been any help from a practical military standpoint. We had no fighters that really could have stood up to the Me-109's and I doubt we would have been anything but a hinderence to the RAF. We were a couple of years away from having anything close to the Spitfire or 109 in terms of performance and our deployment was scattered and aimed towards the Pacific. The Brits took on what they had to and beat a foe superior in numbers without much help from anyone (all credit towards the foreign elements in the RAF). It was their show, plain and simple, and the free world's fate was in their very capable hands in 1940. We were just not capable of being much help. Heck, we weren't even ready 15 months later when we finally found ourselves at war. The Brits did just fine without us in 1940 and we couldn't have made any difference to the BoB had we wanted to. -- Al
 
lancer said:
For what it's worth, PA, the US was in no state of readiness to have entered the war and been any help from a practical military standpoint. We had no fighters that really could have stood up to the Me-109's and I doubt we would have been anything but a hinderence to the RAF. We were a couple of years away from having anything close to the Spitfire or 109 in terms of performance and our deployment was scattered and aimed towards the Pacific. The Brits took on what they had to and beat a foe superior in numbers without much help from anyone (all credit towards the foreign elements in the RAF). It was their show, plain and simple, and the free world's fate was in their very capable hands in 1940. We were just not capable of being much help. Heck, we weren't even ready 15 months later when we finally found ourselves at war. The Brits did just fine without us in 1940 and we couldn't have made any difference to the BoB had we wanted to. -- Al[/QUOTE

True, our aircraft and equipment were not up to par till later on. We could have supplied pilots and AA batteries
Possibly to help out. To me the inability of Germany conquering Britain allowed the massing of U.S. and other
Allied forces to assemble and prepare for operation Overlord.
Click to expand...
 
lancer said:
For what it's worth, PA, the US was in no state of readiness to have entered the war and been any help from a practical military standpoint. We had no fighters that really could have stood up to the Me-109's and I doubt we would have been anything but a hinderence to the RAF. We were a couple of years away from having anything close to the Spitfire or 109 in terms of performance and our deployment was scattered and aimed towards the Pacific. The Brits took on what they had to and beat a foe superior in numbers without much help from anyone (all credit towards the foreign elements in the RAF). It was their show, plain and simple, and the free world's fate was in their very capable hands in 1940. We were just not capable of being much help. Heck, we weren't even ready 15 months later when we finally found ourselves at war. The Brits did just fine without us in 1940 and we couldn't have made any difference to the BoB had we wanted to. -- Al
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The only possible U.S. help at that stage would have been a policy, even if secret, regarding sending pilots, which as we all know never happened, except for 10 volunteers that flew in the BoB...
 
fierytheangelsfell said:
Bader's 'Big Wing' was deeply flawed tactic. Hitting bombers AFTER they had dropped their loads was only effective if it killed Nazi crews or destroyed Nazi aircraft. The Big Wing achieved little compared with the superior tactics of Keith Park and 11 Group (hit them hard in small groups on the way in and keep up the pressure until they eff-off home). Indeed, the Big Wing tactic is essentially what the Luftwaffe was using in the Battle and they were failing miserably.

Leigh-Mallory's and Bader's shafting of the truly great Keith Park was shameful. Park went on to repeat his heroic 'Battle of Britain' success in Malta. Bader spent much of the rest of the war where he couldn't do any more to inflate his ego.

There should be a MASSIVE, permanent statue in gold of Keith Park somewhere in London. Everyone should know Park's name rather than Bader's.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% dead on correct! Great post!
 
The big advantage of the big wing was psycological as Rob points out. And RAF losses were fewer - more fighters to look after eachother.

But it suffered from some major weaknesses.

Group 11 was too close to the Luftwaffe staging area to have sufficient warning and time to form a big wing. It took a long time for fighter aircraft to get to altitude in 1940.

The big wing consisted of both Hurricanes and Spitfires. To form a big wing, the Spitfires had to reduce their performance so the Hurricanes could keep up. Like handcuffs on the Spits.

All or nothing - there are many instances of the big wing forming and never finding the German planes.

There is absolutely no evidence that the big wing was more efficient at shooting down the Luftwaffe. A case to too many attackers for too few targets.

Terry
 
“If ever any one man won the Battle of Britain, Keith Park did.
I don‟t believe it is recognised how much this one man, with his leadership, his calm judgment and his skill, did to save not only this country, but the world.”
Lord Tedder
Chief of the Royal Air Force February 1947
 
fierytheangelsfell said:
Bader's 'Big Wing' was deeply flawed tactic. Hitting bombers AFTER they had dropped their loads was only effective if it killed Nazi crews or destroyed Nazi aircraft. The Big Wing achieved little compared with the superior tactics of Keith Park and 11 Group (hit them hard in small groups on the way in and keep up the pressure until they eff-off home). Indeed, the Big Wing tactic is essentially what the Luftwaffe was using in the Battle and they were failing miserably.

Leigh-Mallory's and Bader's shafting of the truly great Keith Park was shameful. Park went on to repeat his heroic 'Battle of Britain' success in Malta. Bader spent much of the rest of the war where he couldn't do any more to inflate his ego.

There should be a MASSIVE, permanent statue in gold of Keith Park somewhere in London. Everyone should know Park's name rather than Bader's.
Click to expand...

Not in gold but recognition at last.........

http://www.sirkeithpark.com/
 
Someone in Fighter Command, maybe Dowding, credited the supply of hi-octane gasoline, which permitted a fast climb to altitude, as a critical factor in the battle. Maybe America's only real contribution to the defense of Britain. Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top