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

[Louis Badolato]

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

I just call them "the greatest generation" and leave it at that.:wink2:

 

[Rob]

I just call them "the greatest generation" and leave it at that.:wink2:

Very well said mate:salute::

Rob

 

[Cyber Field Marshall]

One of my favourite ranges that K&C produce. I'd say you've nailed most of the issues Rob. To avoid Nationalistic rhetoric and uninformed anecdotal comments I vaguely remember reading statistical projections done by employing sophisticated computer simulations that all came to the similar conclusions (using the conditions you've outlined) that the Germans would have lost the BOB with certainty. Many say because Hitler turned East that England was spared, I don't share that view. If I can find that source I'll post it up.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

I agree that either way Germany was not going to win the BOB.They were losing way
too many aircraft each time they attacked ! I think they under estimated the overall
performance of the Spitfire versus their own aircraft.
In addition the fighting will of the RAF at the time I feel was second to none. Now if Germany had hundreds of ME 262's in the attack it may have been a different outcome.....But no chance there.:wink2:

 

[Rob]

I agree that either way Germany was not going to win the BOB.They were losing way
too many aircraft each time they attacked ! I think they under estimated the overall
performance of the Spitfire versus their own aircraft.
In addition the fighting will of the RAF at the time I feel was second to none. Now if Germany had hundreds of ME 262's in the attack it may have been a different outcome.....But no chance there.:wink2:

Well said. Morale and motivation were big factors. The Luftwaffe crews were flying day in day out were exhausted and were being met each day by greater numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes over a hostile country.The RAF on the other hand although also exhuasted were fighting for their very freedom and the freedom of their country, they couldn't have needed more motivation. Another factor was as the Luftwaffe losses mounted the replacement pilots were getting more and more inexperienced as the Battle went on, this made them easy prey for some of the RAF Aces.

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

Hey Rob-

One of my Target $2 WW2 DVDs touched on the Atlantic battle quite a bit. It looked at Germany winning the battle of Britain and then launching Operation Sea Lion and those consequences. Pretty odd seeing all sorts of WW2 footage spliced together where Hitler is walking around in downtown London and such.

Anyway, the final end result- the US and Nazi Germany go on to fight a Cold War similar to that fought between Russia and the US.

The overall point was that if the RAF failed, the nazis would have run through England pretty easily. They dissected each date and objective as laid out by Sea Lion and played them out as if they had occurred. Mr. Churchill died in an explosion in an air raid and the Royals where flown over to the US.

 

[trooper]

The trouble with all those "what if" videos, Chris, is that they all seem to assume that the Germans would have come storming ashore much as the Allies did in 1944. The thing is the barges weren't suited to the job. The vessels assembled were all canal type vehicles whose engines were not suitable for crossing the Channel, they would all have to be towed. Disembarking was an horrendous job, I have photos of Germans practicing unloading horse drawn artillery and it looks to be chaotic. And that is also a major point, at no time during the war was the German army more than one third mechanised, their reliance upon horse drawn vehicles has always been overlooked. A vast array of narrow beamed towed barges would have been slaughtered by the Navy, they wouldn't even have to use their guns, the propellor wash would have been enough to capsize the invaders. Trooper

 

[Louis Badolato]

The trouble with all those "what if" videos, Chris, is that they all seem to assume that the Germans would have come storming ashore much as the Allies did in 1944. The thing is the barges weren't suited to the job. The vessels assembled were all canal type vehicles whose engines were not suitable for crossing the Channel, they would all have to be towed. Disembarking was an horrendous job, I have photos of Germans practicing unloading horse drawn artillery and it looks to be chaotic. And that is also a major point, at no time during the war was the German army more than one third mechanised, their reliance upon horse drawn vehicles has always been overlooked. A vast array of narrow beamed towed barges would have been slaughtered by the Navy, they wouldn't even have to use their guns, the propellor wash would have been enough to capsize the invaders. Trooper

There is just one problem with your assessment: if the Germans had sufficient air supremecy to launch an amphibious invasion, the Royal Navy would no longer have existed in the Chanel - the Luftwaffe would have sunk any ship with range of their bombers. Without air cover a ship is nothing but a floating target. Just look what Japanese Betty bombers did to the Prince of Wales and its companion, the Repulse.

 

[trooper]

There is just one problem with your assessment: if the Germans had sufficient air supremecy to launch an amphibious invasion, the Royal Navy would no longer have existed in the Chanel - the Luftwaffe would have sunk any ship with range of their bombers. Without air cover a ship is nothing but a floating target. Just look what Japanese Betty bombers did to the Prince of Wales and its companion, the Repulse.

True up to a point, the Japanese were far more experienced at attacking naval targets, the Germans had far less success when attacking the Channel convoys. Even with air supremecy the Luftwaffe would have been unable to prevent mass destruction of their invasion force. Trooper

 

[Rob]

True up to a point, the Japanese were far more experienced at attacking naval targets, the Germans had far less success when attacking the Channel convoys. Even with air supremecy the Luftwaffe would have been unable to prevent mass destruction of their invasion force. Trooper

I've read that some Luftwaffe chiefs were not confident in their ability to destroy enough of the Royal Navy to prevent them inflicting heavy casualties, in fact in books and docu's it often comes across that many felt it was not a good idea. In James Holland's recent book he says Hitler himself was reluctant but was being urged on by Goebbels who hated the Brits. If you think about it, it was a big ask of the German army who had had no previous experience of such a big water crossing invasion, they lacked purpose built landing craft etc. They were also concerned at what 'reception' they would receive upon landing. I think it was quite telling that during the build up to the expected invasion the Germans were voicing complaints about some of the preparations to welcome their Airborne and sea landed troops. Flame throwers and large spikes driven into the ground etc were causing them great concern by all accounts. I think the Luftwaffe may have destroyed ships, but whether they could have sunk enough to stop the Royal Navy arriving to intervene is one of the great unknowns.

There is a book I'd like to read entitled 'How the Royal Navy won the Battle of Britain' thats one that is sure to spark debate!

Rob

 

[Mitch]

I remember well in 2006 the rage that came from Dr Andrew Gordon when he said the battle of Britain victory was a ''substitute victory'' and that it was Hogwash to think the RAF halted Hitler and sealion it was the power of the navy that stopped the invasion. He also said that even with air superiority the Navt would have won the battle.

To say there was a hue and cry from the RAF veterans was to put it mild and, while I can see what he was saying was true in a sense, germany and the luftwaffe would never have gained total air superiority as they were never ever going to totally destroy the RAF. They, had they kept attacking airfields etc, would have only succeded in pushing us back further inland. The attack minded personal of the RAF (we all know them) would have regrouped and continued to take the fight to the germans.

I do think though that the amount of fast destroyers and other vessels would have caused havoc amongst the invasion force and, regardless of bombers etc its not easy to hit targets fast moving in close combat with opposing forces from the air. Look at the losses of naval forces at Dunkirk. I think I am right that all were stationary not on the move. The Luftwaffe was a poor organisation for accurate bombing. The attacks on channel shipping prior to the BOB show this also. Further proof is the channel dash we sent plenty of aircraft after them but, the damage was caused by mines

The germans would never have sent sufficient numbers of planes to totally stop the large numbers of RN ships sent against the invasion force. The RN would have fought and died as courageously as the RAF and damaged Hitlers forces so much they would not have landed in sufficient numbers or, been able to be supplied sufficiently to have proved effective on land.

In essence they had nothing that could beat us on air sea or land military or civillian we were stronger and better
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I remember well in 2006 the rage that came from Dr Andrew Gordon when he said the battle of Britain victory was a ''substitute victory'' and that it was Hogwash to think the RAF halted Hitler and sealion it was the power of the navy that stopped the invasion. He also said that even with air superiority the Navt would have won the battle.

To say there was a hue and cry from the RAF veterans was to put it mild and, while I can see what he was saying was true in a sense, germany and the luftwaffe would never have gained total air superiority as they were never ever going to totally destroy the RAF. They, had they kept attacking airfields etc, would have only succeded in pushing us back further inland. The attack minded personal of the RAF (we all know them) would have regrouped and continued to take the fight to the germans.

I do think though that the amount of fast destroyers and other vessels would have caused havoc amongst the invasion force and, regardless of bombers etc its not easy to hit targets fast moving in close combat with opposing forces from the air. Look at the losses of naval forces at Dunkirk. I think I am right that all were stationary not on the move. The Luftwaffe was a poor organisation for accurate bombing. The attacks on channel shipping prior to the BOB show this also. Further proof is the channel dash we sent plenty of aircraft after them but, the damage was caused by mines

The germans would never have sent sufficient numbers of planes to totally stop the large numbers of RN ships sent against the invasion force. The RN would have fought and died as courageously as the RAF and damaged Hitlers forces so much they would not have landed in sufficient numbers or, been able to be supplied sufficiently to have proved effective on land.

In essence they had nothing that could beat us on air sea or land military or civillian we were stronger and better
Mitch

Another huge factor was morale and motivation. The German Luftwaffe crews were exhausted sometimes carrying out raids for five days non stop, where was their motivation?. The RAF on the other hand could hardly have needed more, the defence of their country, freedom and way of life. At the heart of this battle was I believe a gross misjudgement of one peoples determination and fortitude by another arrogant and complacent people who thought all their battles would be as easy as those that had gone before, they were wrong on all counts.

Rob