The Battle of Britain-Elements coming together (2 Viewers)

[Rob]

Ok, as one who was responsible for a previous B.O.B thread getting shut down I'd really like to start this one up as its such an interesting subject and you will not hear a nationalistic peep out of me I promise.

If events such as the sinking of the Titanic and the first day of the Somme were examples of lots of things coming together at the same time to cause a disaster, was the B.O.B an example of the exact opposite, elements coming together to create a victory?.

Apart from the more talked about elements such as the Spitfire,performance of the RAF , Luftwaffe fighters at the edge of their range etc, what are some of the other elements.

Well of course there is radar, could the Battle really have been won if fighter command could not see the mass of German bombers building up and so scramble fighters to intercept?. The performance of the Observer Corps is another often overlooked but absolutely vital element, I just posted a quote on the K&C thread from Dowding but its worth repeating here;

It is important to note that at this time they (the Observer Corps) constituted the whole means of tracking enemy raids once they had crossed the coastline. Their work throughout was quite invaluable. Without it the air-raid warning systems could not have been operated and inland interceptions would rarely have been made."

The death rate among civilians would surely have been even higher and can you imagine if the RAF could not have intercepted inland, the consequences surely would have been disastrous?. Finally in films and tv the art of dive bombing looks very easy indeed, but reality appears to be far from that. Apparently Radar masts were notoriously difficult to hit and with newly built fighter pens it was much harder to destroy RAF fighters on the ground in large enough numbers to change the course of the Battle. In the B.O.B Film we've all seen the RAF Fighters caught on the ground as they try and take off, but this was not the norm and often these planes were tucked away in their pens.

Finally there is the pilot problem. Often when an RAF pilot was shot down he could be back in the cockpit the same day (injury permitting).But for every Luftwaffe pilot who baled out his war was over.

It really seems many elements affected the outcome of the Battle and perhaps without any one of these examples victory would have either been much harder or indeed impossible.

What do you think guys?

Rob

 

[lancer]

I think you have a good subject, one that I am a little lacking in detailed knowledge of, but I will take a shot. I believe that one of the factors in the RAF's victory was the composition of the Luftwaffe. By this I mean that the Luftwaffe was a tactical weapon, deliberately built to support the ground forces in a blitzkrieg type war. The Luftwaffe was not a strategic weapon that was really capable of the kind of sustained, heavy day to day bombing campaign that would have been neccesary to bring victory in the BoB. The Luftwaffe had no heavy bombers and their fighters were of very limited range (as pointed out). Goering's arrogance and overconfidence in what his Luftwaffe could accomplish was also a major factor. He assigned his pilots a mission they couldn't really win. The Luftwaffe just wasn't built to win a strategic air battle. Throw in faulty tactics and indecision on what were priority targets and the mission becomes even tougher. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Excellent thread. Its the chicken and the egg scenario. Without the hurricane and spitfire we would not have bloodied the Luftwaffe nose but, without the observers and radar they would have been streched to their limit and may well not have stopped the germans and had to regroup further north.

Without Goering sticking his vanity and appeasement for Hitler luftwaffe tactics may have been better certainly Galland and Molders wanted far different tactics to what was used. Though the 'big wing' was a great tactic and played a great role when everything worked correctly.

Without ground crews working round the clock on airfields and aircraft no aircraft would have been able to defend the skies.

It was a team effort even to the RN and fishing boats bringing back pilots shot down in the channel my grandfather ditched in the channel after coming a cropper as he wrote at 11 35am and was back at squadron and airborne again after more bombers at 15 18pm

Home territory was vital in not losing the vital pilots needed conversly, the channel and home territory worked against the luftwaffe as they lost pilots at a very high rate not killed but captured and, were losing the battle of attrition quicker than the RAF.

The more you address everyone's role the more amazing it is often its glossed over in the admiration one has for the pilots and, rightly so, but, they were the remarkable tip of the iceburg everyone was a hero and rightly deserves their place in history
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I think you have a good subject, one that I am a little lacking in detailed knowledge of, but I will take a shot. I believe that one of the factors in the RAF's victory was the composition of the Luftwaffe. By this I mean that the Luftwaffe was a tactical weapon, deliberately built to support the ground forces in a blitzkrieg type war. The Luftwaffe was not a strategic weapon that was really capable of the kind of sustained, heavy day to day bombing campaign that would have been neccesary to bring victory in the BoB. The Luftwaffe had no heavy bombers and their fighters were of very limited range (as pointed out). Goering's arrogance and overconfidence in what his Luftwaffe could accomplish was also a major factor. He assigned his pilots a mission they couldn't really win. The Luftwaffe just wasn't built to win a strategic air battle. Throw in faulty tactics and indecision on what were priority targets and the mission becomes even tougher. -- Al

Good point Al, if the Germans had indeed landed then maybe the Luftwaffe would have been at the top of their game in supporting advancing ground troops. Also, the Spit and ME109 were pretty closely matched in the Battle, but the Hurricane was better than the ME110 (which was heavily armed but not as agile)and of course the Stuka and other bombers, so the RAF had another advantage there too.

Rob

 

[lancer]

There is also the factor of fighting a defensive battle over one's own territory as opposed to flying an offensive campaign over enemy country that can heavily influence pilot loss rates. As Rob mentioned, RAF pilots could often bail out and be back in battle almost immediately whereas a German flyer had to make it back to France for that sort of possibility. In WW1, the RAF and other Allies fought on the offensive while the Germans stayed on the defensive, behind their trenches, over their territory. The Allies thus suffered the higher loss rates with little chance of getting back over friendly territory if their aircraft were damaged and forced to land. Same sort of problem for the two sides, in different wars. -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

I think from an English standpoint- it was either the BoB or the desert victory that began to signify the end- the "Catalyst event" as I believe you were eluding to Rob. If I could pose a question to the British contingent here- based on your experiences/memories/ etc- what seemed to be a bigger "victory"- the succesful defense of the island or the desert campaign- the answer therein lies what I would believe would be the catalytic event.

No doubt in my mind June 6, 1944 was the event in American eyes that boosted our optimism in Europe. Even if we broke at the Bulge, I still don't see the Allies giving Hitler his surrender on his terms. We would have regrouped and thrown the Germans out of Antwerp.

In the pacific- I gotta believe Doolittle's raid or Midway were the real catalytic events in that sphere of conflict.

 

[Rob]

Yes and then theres the question of morale. With the young RAF pilots they had the urge to defend their country and to survive into Victory. But I watched a docu that stated the Luftwaffe pilots suffered from morale problems. The escort ME109 pilots had to constantly have one eye on the fuel guage as they had little time once they'd got here. The Bomber pilots also had it bad, by the time they turned for home they were quite alone, and as RAF tactics changed squadrons of fighters were waiting for them, it must have been soul destroying knowing that if you made it to the target, dropped your bombs, you then had to turn and get all the way back alone without escort. I know I would not have wanted to do it.

One other question, do you think Hitler seriously started to consider Russia, before during or after the B.O.B?

Rob

 

[lancer]

Hi Chris. Don't want to go off topic here, but I agree with the PTO turning point being Midway. The Doolittle Raid was a HUGE moral booster and kind of made it look like the Japanese were not invincible, but Midway proved it. The sinking of the four carriers severely effected Japanese offensive capabilities, and proved that the US Navy was capable of defeating the Japanese Navy in a stand up battle. The whole war in the PTO took a different course from June 1942 on. -- Al

 

[Rob]

I think from an English standpoint- it was either the BoB or the desert victory that began to signify the end- the "Catalyst event" as I believe you were eluding to Rob. If I could pose a question to the British contingent here- based on your experiences/memories/ etc- what seemed to be a bigger "victory"- the succesful defense of the island or the desert campaign- the answer therein lies what I would believe would be the catalytic event.

No doubt in my mind June 6, 1944 was the event in American eyes that boosted our optimism in Europe. Even if we broke at the Bulge, I still don't see the Allies giving Hitler his surrender on his terms. We would have regrouped and thrown the Germans out of Antwerp.

In the pacific- I gotta believe Doolittle's raid or Midway were the real catalytic events in that sphere of conflict.

Good question Chris, I'd go with the B.O.B because it stopped the invasion of this country and people celebrated being saved.However, Alamein was greatly celebrated as it was a victory in which the British were on the attack as opposed to the defensive and thus a great morale booster.

I agree that even if the US had broken at the Bulge once in the War they were unstoppable, their manpower and industrial might was one of the main reasons the war was won, god bless em

Rob

 

[lancer]

Rob, I believe Russia was in Hitler's sights for a long time prior to the BoB. Invasion of Russia was not a question of if but rather of when. German interest in the borders to the east were a long standing fact, as was Hitler's loathing of communism. Space and potential food/oil interests in Russia were essential to Germany. I honestly do not know how the BoB effected Germany's move to the east, timing wise, but the move east was inevitable. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Rob, I believe Russia was in Hitler's sights for a long time prior to the BoB. Invasion of Russia was not a question of if but rather of when. German interest in the eastern borders was a long standing fact, as was Hitler's loathing of communism. Space and potential food/oil interests in Russia were essential to Germany. I honestly do not know how the BoB effected Germany's move to the east, timing wise, but the move east was inevitable. -- Al

Al, that being the case, and from what I've read and watched over the years, it appears Hitlers heart may not have been right in the invasion. James Holland in his recent book suggests that having marched across Europe with total success, England looked like it could be taken to complete matters and have total dominance over Europe.But with Britain on her knees after Dunkirk maybe he should have invaded Russia first and then come back to invade Britain, but we then can speculate on how much more prepared Britain would have been after however long it took to subdue Russia. If Hitlers forces were exhausted after the defeat of France, how much more so after taking on Russia, we will never know but its very interesting.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Al, that being the case, and from what I've read and watched over the years, it appears Hitlers heart may not have been right in the invasion. James Holland in his recent book suggests that having marched across Europe with total success, England looked like it could be taken to complete matters and have total dominance over Europe.But with Britain on her knees after Dunkirk maybe he should have invaded Russia first and then come back to invade Britain, but we then can speculate on how much more prepared Britain would have been after however long it took to subdue Russia. If Hitlers forces were exhausted after the defeat of France, how much more so after taking on Russia, we will never know but its very interesting.

Rob

With the old 20/20 hindsight, there is no doubt that invading Russia, while leaving an unbeaten GB in her rear, doomed Germany. A two front war had been a major German fear since before WW1. Hitler ignored the danger and payed the price. -- Al

 

[Rob]

With the old 20/20 hindsight, there is no doubt that invading Russia, while leaving an unbeaten GB in her rear, doomed Germany. A two front war had been a major German fear since before WW1. Hitler ignored the danger and payed the price. -- Al

Yes, the Blitzkrieg was designed to erase the evil that was WW1 Trench warfare that many nations feared a return to, such a fascinating subject this.

Mitch,

Of course you are spot on, I didn't mention the ground crew (funny because I just ordered that set today!) or the men who rescued our downed pilots from the channel.

I wonder if another element was the fact that Hitler had a sneeking admiration for the British Empire and didn't hate them in the same way he did the Russians, although from Holland's books Goebbels certainly did hate the British and urged Hitler on.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think all of the points made about the Battle of Britain on this thread have been well thought out and valid. I would only add that another factor was the German failure to identify and and stick to a strategy to even an overall objective.

Initially, the overall objective was elimination of the RAF as an effective fighting force to obtain air supremacy and permit a cross-channel invasion. The strategy they chose was to attack radar installations and RAF airfields.

This strategy changed almost immediately, as German intelligence misinterpreted the level of success of their attacks on radar installations, and attacks on these key facilities were abandoned within a week of commencement of the attacks.

The attacks were then focused on the RAF airfields. These attacks came very close to succeeding, as the RAF was within two weeks of collapse at the rate of loss they were sustaining, when the Germans abandoned both the objective and the strategy.

The Germans adopted a new objective: bombing the British people into submission via a new strategy: terror attacks on civilian targets.

These changes in both tactics and objective hamstrung the Luftwaffe, and afforded the RAF an opportunity they might otherwise have been denied had the attacks on radar installations and airfields continued unabated.

 

[Rob]

I think all of the points made about the Battle of Britain on this thread have been well thought out and valid. I would only add that another factor was the German failure to identify and and stick to a strategy to even an overall objective.

Initially, the overall objective was elimination of the RAF as an effective fighting force to obtain air supremacy and permit a cross-channel invasion. The strategy they chose was to attack radar installations and RAF airfields.

This strategy changed almost immediately, as German intelligence misinterpreted the level of success of their attacks on radar installations, and attacks on these key facilities were abandoned within a week of commencement of the attacks.

The attacks were then focused on the RAF airfields. These attacks came very close to succeeding, as the RAF was within two weeks of collapse at the rate of loss they were sustaining, when the Germans abandoned both the objective and the strategy.

The Germans adopted a new objective: bombing the British people into submission via a new strategy: terror attacks on civilian targets.

These changes in both tactics and objective hamstrung the Luftwaffe, and afforded the RAF an opportunity they might otherwise have been denied had the attacks on radar installations and airfields continued unabated.

Absolutely spot on Louis and I overlooked this in my original post. There can be no doubt if they'd continued with the Airfield attacks and knocked out radar as well the result would have most probably been fatal for the RAF. This leads us onto Hitler and his meddling in German Military operations, was he not responsible in a fit of rage for switching from Airfields to civilian targets, although many brave civvies paid the ultimate price, the RAF were able to recover and regroup.

I find it fascinating that such huge moments in History can indeed swing on the actions of one man, in the case Mr A.Hitler.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

For me, the catalyst to may 1945 was the Battle of Britain. It showed the world that the germans were not invincible and, more tellingly, it showed the germans they were not invincible.
Mitch

 

[Rob]

The role of escort for some of these bombers was another drain on morale for the Luftwaffe pilots.When ME109's were escorting Stuka's for instance they had to fly at around 160mph, very low speed indeed for a 109. They also would have preffered to have a protective arc around the bombers of some distance, however the Stuka pilots felt extremely vulnerable and demanded the escorts be insight of them, this meant the whole group flew close together and could be bounced from above by Spitfires and Hurricanes. Throughout the battle debate raged in the Luftwaffe about the right way to deploy the fighters, as Louis said earlier this chopping and changing did little to help the German cause.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Thing is, the Luftwaffe did not chop and change tactics in Poland Belgium france denmark norway and Russia

They did, when they came up against the RAF, from a squadron level to the fuhrer and, this is down purely to the way in which they were out thought and out fought in the battle of britain.

When everything is going your way you stick, as they did in other battles, with the original plan. when your caught with your knickers down improvisation happens and you very rarely, get back on the right foot.

A joint effort from ground to pilot civvy and armed forces stood up and kicked him in the teeth.

We can debate the why's etc but, plan A failed and every other after because we were better on the day
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

Rob, I believe Russia was in Hitler's sights for a long time prior to the BoB. Invasion of Russia was not a question of if but rather of when. German interest in the borders to the east were a long standing fact, as was Hitler's loathing of communism. Space and potential food/oil interests in Russia were essential to Germany. I honestly do not know how the BoB effected Germany's move to the east, timing wise, but the move east was inevitable. -- Al

I agree with this on all levels. I think Hitler knew that if he went East and left GB alone, GB would have come after him eventually. No way the GB or US were going to let Hitler have Russia.

We are all the benefactors of 70 years of history here. An all out airwar like Hitler used with GB has only worked once, so far as I am aware, in the history of aviation history- and that was with Bosnia/Herzegovnia in 1995 with Nato forces. We bombed the living daylights out of Korea, Linebacker 1 and II in Nam were effective but didn't ultimately seal the deal. You cannot win a war with air power alone.

 

[Rob]

I agree with this on all levels. I think Hitler knew that if he went East and left GB alone, GB would have come after him eventually. No way the GB or US were going to let Hitler have Russia.

We are all the benefactors of 70 years of history here. An all out airwar like Hitler used with GB has only worked once, so far as I am aware, in the history of aviation history- and that was with Bosnia/Herzegovnia in 1995 with Nato forces. We bombed the living daylights out of Korea, Linebacker 1 and II in Nam were effective but didn't ultimately seal the deal. You cannot win a war with air power alone.

Well said, even today the footsloggers still have go in and finish the job.

I think in the preparations for the invasion of Britain the Kriegsmarine and German High command had totally differing opinions of what should be done and how to go about it. They differed on timing, location of the landing and how many troops should be put ashore. Its unusual because cohesion and joint operations were a trademark of their earlier operations.

Going back to the Stuka for a moment, I read somewhere a while back that with the bombs slung underneath the aircraft and a speed of around 160mph they were a positive flying time bomb. No wonder they wanted very close support, RAF pilots have described them just disintegrating in huge explosions as a bullet found one of the bombs, must have been a very long and pretty frightening operation flying from say Normandy all the way up and over the Channel knowing you were literally sitting on high explosive with hostile fighters awaiting. Dive bombing say Tanks or ships, or causing panic amongst troops and civvies they were probably second to none, but up against a Spitfire or Hurricane and they were prehistoric and simply not designed for that. At least in a 109 you had a chance!

Rob