The Battle of Britain-Elements coming together (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

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

Very good post and it points out just how wrong the Stuka was for the kind of mission it was assigned in the BoB. Against Britain, the Stuka were shot out of the skies, while in the later campaign against the Russians, it remained an effective tactical support aircraft for most of the war. The Stuka was obsolete in the west in the BoB and was just another blunder by the Germans as they underestimated the RAF. Even a change of tactics (tying the 109's to the Stukas) didn't help the Stukas as they had to be withdrawn from the battle. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Al, I think another thing that really needs to be taken into consideration when talking of the Victory is also Dowding's handling of his squadrons. Only sending two Hurricane squadrons to Dunkirk was , although seen as not nearly enough, was very far sighted as he knew we would need them later and he could not afford to lose them. Also not falling for the German bait of trying to bring his fighters out in large numbers over the Channel to do battle was a masterstroke, he also sent Squadrons up North to build up and train and they would come into their own in large numbers later in the battle.

Another element was the terrible performance of German intelligance during the battle. They routinely over stated how many RAF fighters had been destroyed (the RAF also did this of course) but also totally underestimated how many fighters they had left.Also their reporting of bombing of RAF airfields was woeful. I believe one airfield at least (I think it may have been Manston-could be wrong though) was lightly damaged in an air raid, the German reports said it had been totally destroyed and therefore warranted no further threat and also no further attention. So of course this airfield not only recovered in but a few hours but was allowed to flourish almost unmolested.

Rob

 

[trooper]

The most unsung heros of the Battle of Britain must be the ground crews. Quite rightly most of what is written deals with the pilots and their gallant endeavours, but little is recorded of the back breaking efforts of the erks who worked all the hours God sent to keep the aircraft serviceable and flying while being bombed and strafed. The victory is due as much to their efforts to provide aircraft as to the men who took them into action. Trooper

 

[lancer]

The most unsung heros of the Battle of Britain must be the ground crews. Quite rightly most of what is written deals with the pilots and their gallant endeavours, but little is recorded of the back breaking efforts of the erks who worked all the hours God sent to keep the aircraft serviceable and flying while being bombed and strafed. The victory is due as much to their efforts to provide aircraft as to the men who took them into action. Trooper

Great point. True of all the people in the logistical support sections of any army. Without the people who maintain the machines and move the supplies, no one gets very far. A fine example of the "over the top" efforts by all of GB in her triumph during the BoB. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Al, I think another thing that really needs to be taken into consideration when talking of the Victory is also Dowding's handling of his squadrons. Only sending two Hurricane squadrons to Dunkirk was , although seen as not nearly enough, was very far sighted as he knew we would need them later and he could not afford to lose them. Also not falling for the German bait of trying to bring his fighters out in large numbers over the Channel to do battle was a masterstroke, he also sent Squadrons up North to build up and train and they would come into their own in large numbers later in the battle.

Another element was the terrible performance of German intelligance during the battle. They routinely over stated how many RAF fighters had been destroyed (the RAF also did this of course) but also totally underestimated how many fighters they had left.Also their reporting of bombing of RAF airfields was woeful. I believe one airfield at least (I think it may have been Manston-could be wrong though) was lightly damaged in an air raid, the German reports said it had been totally destroyed and therefore warranted no further threat and also no further attention. So of course this airfield not only recovered in but a few hours but was allowed to flourish almost unmolested.

Rob

Dowding's leadership and his decisions were a major (if not THE major) factor in the BoB victory. But I still believe it is the overall spirit, the refusal to knuckle under, the all for one and one for all type moral factor that won the BoB. It was a national victory in the truest sense, from the pilots at the tip of the spear to the dauntless population that endured the days and nights of terror under the bombing. All factors needed to click and that is what happened.:salute:::salute:::salute:: -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Dowding's leadership and his decisions were a major (if not THE major) factor in the BoB victory. But I still believe it is the overall spirit, the refusal to knuckle under, the all for one and one for all type moral factor that won the BoB. It was a national victory in the truest sense, from the pilots at the tip of the spear to the dauntless population that endured the days and nights of terror under the bombing. All factors needed to click and that is what happened.:salute:::salute:::salute:: -- Al

I completely agree about Dowding. He was a great man, and a visionary, and he was totally screwed over after winning the Battle of Britain by unscrupulous subordinates.

 

[Mitch]

Nothing I would disagree with here. Just sums it all up perfectly.
Cheers Al
Mitch

Dowding's leadership and his decisions were a major (if not THE major) factor in the BoB victory. But I still believe it is the overall spirit, the refusal to knuckle under, the all for one and one for all type moral factor that won the BoB. It was a national victory in the truest sense, from the pilots at the tip of the spear to the dauntless population that endured the days and nights of terror under the bombing. All factors needed to click and that is what happened.:salute:::salute:::salute:: -- Al

 

[Terp152]

Mitch mentioned ditching in the Channel and returning to RAF bases shortly thereafter. Even ditching was a threat to maintaining the thin line of pilots. Flying over the Channel beyond gliding distance in case of damage was forbidden for a while during the height of the battle.

I think it was Dowding who credited the availability of higher octane aviation gas as a critical factor. It enabled scrambling fighters to climb to interception altitude in minimal time.

Rob mentioned Manston. It was nicknamed Manston In the Dust due to extensive damage. Most historians agree a turning point was Luftwaffe abandonment of the airfield attack strategy. The RAF would have reached a critical point had the airfield attacks continued.

 

[Rob]

Mitch mentioned ditching in the Channel and returning to RAF bases shortly thereafter. Even ditching was a threat to maintaining the thin line of pilots. Flying over the Channel beyond gliding distance in case of damage was forbidden for a while during the height of the battle.

I think it was Dowding who credited the availability of higher octane aviation gas as a critical factor. It enabled scrambling fighters to climb to interception altitude in minimal time.

Rob mentioned Manston. It was nicknamed Manston In the Dust due to extensive damage. Most historians agree a turning point was Luftwaffe abandonment of the airfield attack strategy. The RAF would have reached a critical point had the airfield attacks continued.

Quite correct, the shift in thier bombing strategy was a big mistake for the Luftwaffe. I mentioned Manston as the airfield that was lightly damaged and then ignored, but as I said I may have got the name wrong, but at least one of the airfields was only lightly damaged but the quite awful performance of German intelligance led them to then ignore it after that, leaving it quite free to continue sending up fighters into the Battle.

Rob

 

[breslau]

I think the thread correctly summarises the German failure and the stoic/magnificant air defence by Britain. The arguments about Barbarossa are equally valid. But even if the Germans had gained air superiority, the success of Seelöwe would still have been very doubtful.

Head-on warfare is tough. Before Hitler committed to Barbarossa, could the Battle of Britain been won by the Axis in Egypt in 1940-1941?

If the Axis had taken Malta, and effectively supplied Rommel in 1941, could the British (the Churchill Government) survive the loss of Egypt? Would the British have negotiated if Egypt had fallen? I think the first real Axis blunder (and the only chance to beat Britain) was their failure to realise that capturing Malta and subsequently Egypt was the best way to beat Britain. For the Axis, the Battle of Britain was a strategic waste of time and effort.

 

[Mitch]

Breslau...

You raise some interesting points but, I think the loss of egypt would not have been such a blow to the empire at the time losing Malta, would have been a bigger blow but still with Gibralter not the end of the world as we would still have effectively controlled the med and, still could have attacked the german convoys.

The importance of the germans getting egypt would have allowed the notion which was something the german high command wanted of allowing another theatre for attacking Russia and, further splitting the russian forces and, that would have been quite catastrophic for the russians.

One thing that is clear is that with the royal navy still strong and the RAF still strong and the bomber force still able to hit german targets we were a potent force against Hitler and, Churchill would never or, the british population have allowed negotiations of any kind with germany. It really was a fight to the death and, I certainly think we were aware of that and up for it
Mitch

 

[Rob]

No doubt about it, those good people of Malta went through a hell of a time and held out in terrible conditions, as Mitch and Breslau both said its loss would have been a real blow.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Breslau...

You raise some interesting points but, I think the loss of egypt would not have been such a blow to the empire at the time losing Malta, would have been a bigger blow but still with Gibralter not the end of the world as we would still have effectively controlled the med and, still could have attacked the german convoys.

The importance of the germans getting egypt would have allowed the notion which was something the german high command wanted of allowing another theatre for attacking Russia and, further splitting the russian forces and, that would have been quite catastrophic for the russians.

One thing that is clear is that with the royal navy still strong and the RAF still strong and the bomber force still able to hit german targets we were a potent force against Hitler and, Churchill would never or, the british population have allowed negotiations of any kind with germany. It really was a fight to the death and, I certainly think we were aware of that and up for it
Mitch

I have to disagree with you on this one Mitch. As you rightly assert, the loss of Malta would have been a terrible blow, but I think it would have been a fatal blow for the Allies. If Germany takes Malta, it controls airfields on both sides of its supply route to North Africa (Malta and Sicily). Regardless of British control of Gibraltar, and the strength of the British fleet the Axis, not the British, would control the Mediteranean from these two unsinkable aircraft carriers (we all know that absent control of the air, a fleet is merely a target).

With control of the air and the supply route, and a focus on North Africa rather than Russia, no offense to the brave men of the 8th Army, but they wouldn't have stood a chance. They would have been cut off from supplies, and facing 100% of the German effort, rather than less than 10%. The Germans would have taken the Suez Canal, pushed on into the Middle East, and secured the oil fields. With this unlimited supply of oil, even if the British didn't surrender, the Germans would then have been able to focus 100% of their efforts on Britain alone. If they figured out that attacking the airfields was the way to go, they would have obtained air supremecy over the English Channel, and prevented British warships from protecting the coast. Eventually, they would have been able to force a landing, and win the war. In the alternative, they would have had time to focus on the U-Boat war in the North Atlantic, and starve the British into submission. Either way, the loss of Malta, and the subsequent inevitable loss of the Middle East, would have ensured British defeat.

For my money, the Nazi attack on Russia, and the failure to appreciate the need to take Malta, were the two biggest keys in ensuring their defeat. The brave defenders of Malta get no where near the credit they deserve. They, and the Russian troops who held at Stalingrad and outside Moscow, saved the free world.

 

[Mitch]

Louis....

I don't believe a catastrophic blow. I remember doing my MA at Hull university and attending some classes and lectures by Dr Eric Grove who, on this very subject argued that although a blow it would not have been catastrophic as some historians have conjectured. It would have been harder than it was with the loss of the two carriers and battleships and ships of Force K. so, I suppose its where you sit in the what if scenario that this is.

It was also argued that the island had become the verdun of WWII drawing both sides into a debilitating battle of attrition which, the axis forces could sustain shorter than the allies. Having also awarded the island the GC as much at that time a propaganda gesture there was no way the island was then going to be allowed to fall (like singapore) Arguably, the noth african campaign can be said to have been fought to sustain Malta as much as vice versa.

Hitler never saw Africa as a hugely important theatre so, a military and ideological shift would have to have taken place for that theatre to have taken more importance over the real enemy and lebenstraum ideology of Russia and, for the domino effect to happen that you place in your post. I did say Malta was important but, made strangling of Rommells supplies easier with than without but, not impossible.

Fortunately as the convoys and RN and spit and hurricanes again blunted the axisw forces its all conjecture.
Mitch

I have to disagree with you on this one Mitch. As you rightly assert, the loss of Malta would have been a terrible blow, but I think it would have been a fatal blow for the Allies. If Germany takes Malta, it controls airfields on both sides of its supply route to North Africa (Malta and Sicily). Regardless of British control of Gibraltar, and the strength of the British fleet the Axis, not the British, would control the Mediteranean from these two unsinkable aircraft carriers (we all know that absent control of the air, a fleet is merely a target).

With control of the air and the supply route, and a focus on North Africa rather than Russia, no offense to the brave men of the 8th Army, but they wouldn't have stood a chance. They would have been cut off from supplies, and facing 100% of the German effort, rather than less than 10%. The Germans would have taken the Suez Canal, pushed on into the Middle East, and secured the oil fields. With this unlimited supply of oil, even if the British didn't surrender, the Germans would then have been able to focus 100% of their efforts on Britain alone. If they figured out that attacking the airfields was the way to go, they would have obtained air supremecy over the English Channel, and prevented British warships from protecting the coast. Eventually, they would have been able to force a landing, and win the war. In the alternative, they would have had time to focus on the U-Boat war in the North Atlantic, and starve the British into submission. Either way, the loss of Malta, and the subsequent inevitable loss of the Middle East, would have ensured British defeat.

For my money, the Nazi attack on Russia, and the failure to appreciate the need to take Malta, were the two biggest keys in ensuring their defeat. The brave defenders of Malta get no where near the credit they deserve. They, and the Russian troops who held at Stalingrad and outside Moscow, saved the free world.

 

[breslau]

Mitch - I have to agree with Louis.

Hitler surely wanted his -Lebensraum in the East. But what if he delayed Barbarossa until 1942 and he observed another of his key doctrines of avoiding a two-front war? Had he listened particularly to Admiral Raeder and pursued the British in the Mediterranean/North Africa in 1940-41, I think Britain and the Commonwealth would have been dealt a death-blow.

Even if Malta hadn't fallen before May 1941 but Rommel received enough continuous supplies, the 8th Army would have fought a valiant but impossible to win battle. What if in April/May 1941 Rommel was not only able to encircle (maybe even capture) Tobruk but had enough well supplied forces to continue his advance into Egypt while Allied forces had been diverted to the Greek campaign? A disaster in North Africa would have been in the making.

Rommel approaching Alexandria and Cairo, would have provoked the Egyptian uprising and the only strategic option open to the Allies, a withdrawal to the eastern side of the Suez. Axis forces astride the Suez would have effectively cut supply links to India, Australia and NZ. Any further Axis advance would have seen oil supplies from the Midlle East threatened. The Iraqi uprising would also have been a probable success. The Grand Mufti may even have succeded in his dream of a pan-Arab alliance with the Axis.

Politically, I don't believe the Churchill Government could have survived this catastrophe.

Importantly the strategic position would have changed. Turkey, Spain and Vichy France (in fear of losing colonies to Spain or Italy) may have all declared for the Axis. The air threat to Gibraltar alone would have rendered it indefensible and gallant Malta would have withered. Without the Suez Canal was Gibraltar of any use to the Allied war effort in the Mediterranean anyway?

The Axis would have new naval and air bases in Western Africa to have added even more threat to Atlantic supply routes and they would be a sufficient deterrent to any Allied landing in north-west Africa. As Louis says, with an effective Axis blockade strategy, Britain would then have been in serious supply problems.

Also in 1942 the Axis would have been better positioned with more options for attacking the Soviet Union.

All this could realistically have happened in mid to late 1941 if Hitler had given enough supplies to Rommel. I belive this is the theatre of war where Hitler truly lost the Battle of Britain. Thankfully Hitler lacked vision.

 

[Mitch]

There are some interesting views but, that all supposes that the axis capitalised on these 'what if's' and, that the RN and airforce just sort of caved and did nothing. Axis airpower was more potent than their naval forces so, its also supposing that the RN would have not fought back and, strengthened their forces. Remembering, also that Hitler at that time was occupying a large portion of europe and needed to keep sufficient forces to subjugate the local population and at that time, significant resistance uprisings in occupied countries.

There are also new documents that are now showing that Russia was planning on attacking Germany and, much of the supposition although reasonable supposes that Hitler turned his gaze away from Russia or vice versa and, that during this period lend lease etc was only increasing from the US making britain stronger not weaker.

As I said its a fact that it would have been much harder and costly action had Malta been taken but, I also remember reading a similar worse case scenario at the fall of Crete but, nothing happened. I know Malta was more important but, just suggesting that similar arguments were placed.

All interesting what if's though
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Forgetting Spits,ME's,tactics for a min there is another element often unsung that won the Battle. I am watching a series entitled ' Finest hour' which looks at the vital jobs carried out by civilians on the front line. The role and sacrifice of the men and mostly women who worked on the production lines producing aircraft was both heroic and very very dangerous. The idea that the Luftwaffe only bombed airfields etc is a total myth, hundreds of men and women were killed in bombing raids during daylight hours as the Germans sought to cripple aircraft production. In the raid just described by the lady in the programme, 91 people died and 300 wounded in one raid alone on the Bristol aircraft complex . It was the bravery , fortitude and dedication of these now very elderly men and women that helped swing the tide against the Germans, deepest respect and gratitude to every single one of them who served this country so well.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Exactly, ironic that Hitlers propaganda people did Triumph of the will there's was just not as strong as ours. Oh well!!

I saw a similar programme where the workers had to move the rubble and bodies of their fellow workers and friends and after that start making war materials!!1 astonishing what the people on the home front (but was a war front) had to endure
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Exactly, ironic that Hitlers propaganda people did Triumph of the will there's was just not as strong as ours. Oh well!!

I saw a similar programme where the workers had to move the rubble and bodies of their fellow workers and friends and after that start making war materials!!1 astonishing what the people on the home front (but was a war front) had to endure
Mitch

Spot on. I think this exchange between Goering and one of his Chiefs of staff Jeschonnek says it all.They were talking about the terror bombing of London. Goering was reluctant to bomb London but Jeschonnek was all for it. Goering asked him if Germany would cave in if Berlin was wiped out?.

' Of course not!' he replied,realising what he had just said he added 'British morale is more brittle than our own' to which Goering replied; ' Thats where you're wrong'. EVEN Goering knew it.

These poor men and women who survived the raids on their factories had to return to work as soon as possible, with no trauma councilling we have today and to carry on in the very place that often all their friends had been killed or wounded and were now gone. These men and women were of a different class, different values and knew what they had to do. Can hardly summon up the words to describe my respect for them.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

One of the banks in London was offering councelling for its staff to cope with public animosity!!! Just shows where we are at. These men and women took it on the chin and dealt with horrendous day-to-day events for months and months. listening to what my Gran had to go through I don't understand what hardship is. I am there all day long with you in my admiration to them
Mitch