The Battle of Britain
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23506
Printed Date: 28-May-2024 at 16:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Battle of Britain
Posted By: Scaevola
Subject: The Battle of Britain
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 15:59
|
I remember reading that Churchill once remarked, concerning his RAF forces' engagement with the Luftwaffe - "Never before have the fates of so many been in the hands of so few" or something similar, referring to the relatively few airplane pilots and their pivotal role in mantaining the defense of the island.
1) How crucial was the RAF's victory in this battle to the course of the war?
2) What do you believe might have happened if the Luftwaffe would have succeeded?
3) How much responsibility can Churchill and the alleged resolve he inspired in the British people claim for this heroic defense? ------------- SPQR| Alea Iacta Est |
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 16:29
|
I would say that the Brits of WWII had plenty of resolve with or without Churchill. He surely added to their determination in fortress England. The RAF also had some nifty experience with a little thing called radar. With that early warning system the Hurricanes and Spitfires had a field day especially against Luftwaffe bombers. Had the Germans succedded it wouldn't have been pretty. An invasion would most likey have taken place. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 16:41
|
1) If the Germans "won" there was still the little matter of the Royal Navy to get past, which no one has had much success with for over 500 years.
2) If they had succeeded in forcing a Brotish capitulation, well not much. Britain has a wide world view, it has been their policy for 500 years that there can be no one dominating power on the continent, they went to war against Spain, France and lately Germany over this issue. Even if they had been forced to capiltulate, I doubt it would have changed the over all outcome, like in the Napoleonic wars, it would have merely been a truce, and they would have been looking for an oppurtunity to strike back against old Adolf, like they did against Nappy, or Charly or Phil, or Lou; say when the Germans failed outside Moscow.
3) Not much, he was a morale raiser, but it was Dowding who won the Battle of Britain, it was Fraser and Cunningham and Horton who ensured that Britain still ruled the seas. Churchill's military decisions were witout exception; disasterous. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 16:46
|
Ture that the Royal Navy was top notch. However, the era of battleships would have faced the dawn of bomber attacks over the English channel. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 17:10
|
In the English channel bombers were not as important as mines. It would be difficult for the RN to even get there.
The Germans would have had pretty much free reign without the RN. They would have crossed the channel in their open top landing ships, prayed for good weather or have been annihilated. They would then have had to survive onslaught by the RAF's northern squadrons, which didn't participate in the Battle of Britain and were held in reserve by Dowding for this very instance. A nasty shock......
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 21:29
Depends on whether you are discussing simply the war between Britain and Germany or the war as a whole. Just between Britain and Germany it was important, as a whole, not much. With Barbarossa and the declaration against the US, BoB became minimal by comparison. If Britain had been successfully invaded and conquered, the germans are still going to lose I think against the might of the US and USSR.
If the luftwaffe wins, (assuming low or reasonable casualties for the Germans) the Germans have a much better chance of invading, strong as the royal navy is, it can suffer atrocious casualties against air power. A successful invasion is still a very risky thing, even with the air war won, I don't know whether the germans attempt anything, theres the prize in the east that has already all but been decided upon.
I think he was best at propaganda and morale for civilians as the figurehead of inspiration, (regular persons might have appreciated seeing a public figure showing resolve/the same feelings they have etc.) someone like gcle could probably answer that one much better than I can. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 10:58
In terms of morale building King George VI often gets overlooked. But his decision to keep his family in London throughout the blitzes had an immense impact on national morale.
Including presumably, some of those very appointments. While he didn't appoint Cunningham or Dowding, his replacement of Dowding by Douglas in 1940 was probably a good thing. And don't forget Alexander and Montgomery and Mountbatten and Slim.
What specific military decisions are you talking about (in ww2 - I guess we all know about Gallipoli). ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 10:59
|
The RAF's victory was pretty crucial in that it demonstrated that the up-to-then feared Luftwaffe had its limitations. That in turn gave hope to all the conquered nations of Europe. Never underestimate the morale effect.
If the Germans had won the BoB over Southern England then they might have tried an invasion but never forget the RAF forces north of the Thames outside Luftwaffe fighter range which would have been available. So the invasion would still have been problematical still more so if delayed beyond September. If the Germans had invaded successfully then there might have been a major turnaround. The US was in no position to fight a war let alone invade Europe unless perhaps strong British elements had escaped overseas to e.g. Canada. The USSR would have faced a Germany who had nothing to worry about at the rear and the results there might have been very different
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 12:00
|
GLCE2003, Actually I agree with the Gallopoli thing, the plan was the Admiraltys, the landing on the wrong beaches was the Aussies fault. Incidentally WWII, Slim was appointed by the Government of India, Wavell to be exact, while in Montys case it was done after reluctance. But then appointments of commanders is always a throw of the dice. His WWII decisions; Greece, depeleteing the Eight Army of almost all of its strategic reserves and ensured two years of bitter fighting, Italy from about December '43 onwards, denying Singapore reinforcements (despite there being a lot of Indian and British troops in Persia just sitting there doing nothing) before the war, and then sending them judicioulsy, when defeat was ensured and they could be added to the captured count. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 13:42
What military decisions did he make ?
The were made by the Chiefs of Staff with himself presiding as Minister of Defence. This was to get over the problem of WWI with the 'frocks' and 'brass hats' problem.
Basically it worked extremely well and similar was used in the US and then the Combined Chiefs of Staff who had the joint representatives from the US and the UK.
They worked within political directives to achieve strategic objectives.
Churchill in the UK may and did (as he should) keep prodding the Chiefs of Staff with various ideas some of which he was really sold on.
He never overruled his Chiefs of Staff in the way Hitler used to do. He abided by their decisions
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 13:57
|
My above post, Singapore. Greece, Italy etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 14:12
|
Again what military decisions did he take on his own without the advice and support of the Chiefs of Staff ?
When and where did ever overrule them ?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 14:15
|
The decision to send troops to Greece, the decision to reinforce Singapore very late and when it was doomed all against the advice of the General staff. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 15:13
|
1. The BoB was the first attempt of the Third Reich to achieve a strategic objective that failed. And it showed the weaknesses of the Luftwaffe. The RAF gained experience and confidence.
2. The only way to win was for the Germans to rapidly advance and get a quick surrender. IMHO I think it wouldn't have been possible. First, Dunkirk showed that air forces could wreck havoc against ships yet a transport operation could succeed. So the Germans would not have to be worried about getting ashore because of the RAF but because of the RN. The problem was that they could not have supported the landing with enough warships. None of their battleships was available and the fleet of destroyers was almost wipped out in the norwegian campaign. So if the RN would have been keen to accept horrible losses from the Luftwaffe it would have smashed the transports. I think morale and politics would have counted more than military strength. My guess is that if they would have landed, the Germans would have to give up because ....
3.... Winston was too stubborn and not only him. I've read a lot of books, not only history but also literature and I've never had the impression that the British were about to give up if invaded. They would have made their stand and I think they would have eventually won the battle. Churchill would then have been the hero of all Europe. Sometimes being thick headead is a quality.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 15:26
|
Incorrect. It may have been against their better judgment but there was no way Greece could be left to suffer unaided. Singapore's reinforcements weren't sent until they were available that may have been too late but both were an accepted risks with which CoS concurred. Given the state of affairs it was the best they could do at the time.
Read Alanbrooke's diaries
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 16:14
|
Read them again, Alanbrook wanted reinforcements sent in September, when it beca,e clear that war was imminient not in DEcember when it was clear that war would be lost. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 18:28
it was not the fault of the Luftwaffe but of their leaders (Göring) and the way they were used in the BoB, which they were not designed for. also, the RN is no problem, Stukas sunk pretty much any enemy battleship in harbour, look at Russia & Greece for example. if you have air superiority, ships aren't a problem. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 10:59
Saves me getting on my hobbyhorse
 .
Well, Wavell was appointed by Churchill (though mostly it seemed to get him out of Africa). And, formalities apart, the 'Government of India' was the government in Whitehall.
(Wavell is an interesting case: a very good man, possibly great, but not a very good general.)
I'll give you Greece was in the end a mistake. It's the suggestion that all his military decisions were disastrous I was objecting to. I don't know what you mean about the Italian campaign. And of course he was not responsible for 'denying Singapore reinforcements ... before the war' if you mean ww2. If you mean not foreseeing the Japanese attacks of December 1941 - who did? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 11:14
I can't see how you can say 'it was not the fault of the Luftwaffe but of their leaders.' Their leaders were also part of the Luftwaffe. That would be like saying 'it was not the fault of the army but of the general staff'.
I don't think anyone blames the individual pilots.
Then how come the RAF spent so much of the war failing to sink Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?
More widely, commenting on some other posts, the general plan is known to have been that in the event of a successful occupation of Britain by Germany, the King and government would establish themselves in Canada, and continue the war from there. I've no doubt that would have happened. And in any case there is a big difference between invasion and occupation.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 11:24
|
Graham sahib GOI was subordinate to the Gov in London true, but matters concering army etc were always handled by the Viceroy's council who were often at odds with Whitehall.By Aug/Sep 1941 it was clear to British Intel that war was imminient wit Japan, yet troops were not sent despite repeated requests. Troops began arriving in force in Janaury when the battle had already begun and the cause was doomed. Quiet a few godd units and formations were lost, including most of the Agyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the entire 8th Punjab REgt and two battlehardened Aussie brigades. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 12:24
I didn't said it was Luftwaffe's fault. I said it showed its weakenesess like: inabuility to attack distant targets, low payload capacity, short range of fighters, overstimation of bombing effects, etc.
If you think Goring is the one who shifted from bombing the RAF to bombing London then his weakness is the fact that he didn't stand against Hitler. Goring was in fact for the continuation of grinding the 11 th FG.
The range of the Ju87 limits its ability to strike long distance blows. The whole Home Fleet would not have been easy to chew by the Luftwaffe. The He111 and Ju88(these were also too few) were not able at the time to inflict to much damage to a military surface force. The Do17 was useless against such targets. And the Stukas would also have been needed to support the ground forces. And it was the B that was available not the D. Torpedo bombers are the worst enemy of a battleship. Not many available by then. All in all the Luftwaffe, all by itself, had not enough strength to interdict the Channel for the RN. Think of what the outcome would have been if two CL plus ten to fifteen DD would have get in firing range with the German transports.
Air superiority reduces the threat posed by ships, does not eliminate it. Remember, GB was defendig herself. I admit that the losses would have been horrible though.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 13:34
What was wanted and what could be done considering everything else going on was quite another.
The decisions were joint ones based on choosing from a number of difficulties which had been prioritised.
Originally Singapore was believed to be capable of standing up to any attack. The garrison numbers were already large and deemed sufficient for defence.
They were misused in Singapore
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 13:54
|
On Singapore surely the basic mistake was the one seen as mistaken at the time: the place was thought only attackable from the sea. It simply wasn't fortified against a land attack out of Malaya. While Churchill may have been as blind to the possibility as anyone else, he wasn't responsible for that.
Doesn't matter how many troops you have there if, figuratively speaking, they're all looking the wrong way.
PS. It would also be possible to write the error down as due to Britain's obsession with naval defence. The assumption was that the enemy would have to get past the navy to attack. Again that certainly wasn't only Churchill's misreading.
And incidentally those troops in Persia weren't doing nothing. They were keeping the Russians out. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 19:12
the Luftwaffe was designed to support the ground forces and that was their single purpose, it could not fight in a way that the BoB demanded from them. Göring ignored this and told Adolf he could win, so he launched this useless campaign in the first place.
Ju 87s range is limited but sufficient to cover the channel including harbours. all those Soviet and Greek battleships sunk where in their harbours. the German Battlecruisers where either well protected in their harbours, like Tirpitz in Norway, or on the high seas and difficult to catch or spot in the first place. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 19:39
That was pre-war that is the 1920;s and 1930's. By Sepetember 1941 both India Command and GHQ London agreed that main axis of attack would come from Malaya and furthermore that the warplan should have most troops moving into Siam to preempt that (incidentally this was probably the only time in history that India Command and LOndon agreed with one another), and the General Staff reccomended moving a corps from Persia which old Winny flat out refused, until the goose was well and truly cooked (and those troops were moved from Africa). ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2008 at 17:01
|
True, the Germans would still have been in 'over their heads' against the US and the Soviet Union. However, there are a number of important issues here that could make a big difference. If Britain is assumed to be 'defeated', does that simply mean that the British Isles have been 'neutralized' or 'occupied', but Britain and the Commonwealth are still in the war? Or does one assume that Britain is out of the war. Without Britain (and Commonwealth) actually being at war, does Hitler even declare war on the US - after all the 'assistance' the US was giving Britain and the resulting 'undeclared' war in the Atlantic were major considerations in Hitler's decision to declare war on the US. Furthermore, although the US clearly had massive potential, there was a signficant lag before the US was able to apply that potential to the battlefield in the ETO. Although the US was 'openly' at war with Germany in Dec. 1941, and in spite of the 'official' adoption of the 'Europe First' strategy, it wasn't until Nov. 1942 that American troops joined in the land fighting in a significant way, with the Torch landings. Even then, the British played a major role in supporting / facilitating the Americans in the landings - with their assets in the Med in particular. Without the British, the Americans would have been much further behind the historical schedule. Frankly it is difficult to see how they would effectively intervened in Europe with Britain completely out of the war. With a large delay in the US projecting force into Europe, Germany would have been 'one-on-one' with the Soviets for a much longer period of time. The 'front' against the US and Britain played critical roles at 2 'turning points' in the war in the east. First, during the Stalingrad period the Germans were using critical air assets to transport and supply the forces necessary to set up a front in Tunisia. Then the offensive at Kursk was called off due to the landings in Italy. Without having to fight the British and later American forces, the Germans would have been able to attack the Soviets a bit early, with a bit more forces and would have been able to concentrate on the eastern front for a bit longer. The absence of the historical bombing offensive against Germany would have freed the Luftwaffe to provide greater air support against the Soviets. Still, it is difficult to know for certain, even given all that, whether or not Germany could have defeat the Soviet Union. Even a 'victory' in the terms defined by Hitler - i.e. the A-A line, would have left a 'hostile' rump state east of the Urals. However, clearly such a scenario would have been sufficiently different from the historical to justify the conclusion that Britain remaining in the war, with the British Isles still 'free' had a huge impact on the course of the war, and determined the outcome to a significant degree. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2008 at 14:34
|
With Britain out of the way, why would Germany ever need to declare war against the US whilst she was facing Russia ?
Would the US actually declare war agianst Germany ? There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm
|
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2008 at 17:00
Exactly. Again it comes down to exactly what you mean by 'Britain out of the way'. If Britain is presumed to be continuing the war from 'abroad', as per Churchill's 'fight them on the beaches.... never surrender' speech, then perhaps continuing American aid / assistance would 'provoke' Hitler to declare war. But with Britain completely out of the war, that's hard to see happening.
Again, probably not with Britain completely out of it. Certainly not before Japan was finished off, assuming Pearl Harbor still took place historically. In that scenario you have the Soviet Union facing an 'undistracted' Germany 'alone' for a much longer period of time. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:34
|
Read the "Hitler Options" by a collective group of historians I can't recall, but the very first story is about Operation Sea Lion beginning with the neutralization of the RAF. Most historians are very conflcited on whether or not Germany would have succeeded in a full-scale invasion, in fact Raeder thought it was doomed from inception. However, the book paints a damned convincing scenario right down to fleeing citizens and livestock blocking crucial roads soldiers required for advancement. Personally, I think Hitler was too conflicted of an individual to achieve anything with Britain. In private he often spoke of his disdain for the British Empire and his desire to dismember it, but on other occasions he spoke of creating a potent alliance with it. His indecisiveness can be seen at Dunkirk where German tanks sat idly by while the British fled, but later Hitler became enraged that this show of goodwill did not urge British surrender. A smarter idea would been to have committed more divisions in Africa and cut off the British there. What I'm trying to say is that with Hitler at the helm, the British would never be defeated. ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 01:25
Hitler was Britain's secret weapon. (MI6 agent )
I was refering to the British Islands being conquered, not the british government or dominions.
As far as US involvement without Britain, with Hitler at the helm, I have not the slightest of ideas as to how that would play out. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 03:27
|
On a sidenote: how was Germany to invade Britain when they had zero landing craft and a leader who loved the British Empire and would gain little from its total collapse? Remember how difficult planning Overlord was even with a few years, infinite resources, total air and sea supremacy and even THEN they almost postponed it for a few more months due to weather? Germany could've eventually conquered the British Isles but the question is... when? 1941? 1942? ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 16:35
|
There was a narrow window of opportunity wherein the Germans might have had some chance of success albeit very slim. That period was between the fall of France and september. They would still have had to defeat utterly the RAF (not possible) and be able to contend with the RN. After that weather and growing British strength would make it impossible
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 15:13
Also, it wasn't suited for naval attacks. The number of pilots with reasonable training in attacking ships was minimal.
What harbours are you talking about? The Stukas could not reach Scapa, or Loch Ewe, or other military harbours. Do you really think that the RN would have brought in the big guns and tucked them in a harbour so that the Germans would bomb them at will?
Anyway, the Germans, after Norway, were practically lacking any significant surface units. The RN, on the other hand, had lots of destroyers and sufficient cruisers. Those ships were enough to turn the german transports into scrap. They could attack from northeast and west at dusk and keep on pounding the transports till dawn. And they were far harder to be destroyed by air attacks.
So, my guess is that they could have secured one or more beachheads but they would not have been able to supply the landing forces with enough materials. Therefore, no reasonable chances for the invasion to succeed.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:58
Good point. They just saw the effects in Spain with totaly unopposed raids against a civilian population with no advance preperations and is in some cases, of mixed morale. (Nationalist sympathizers and nueteral Spaniards).
The logic went that if "X tons of bombs acheived Y in Spain, then X(10) tons of bombs will devastate any enemy". 60 years later, the US theorists make the same mistake with "Shock and Awe". The logic went that "Shock and Awe tactics achieved "X "in Gulf War I. Therefore, more of the same will easily collapse Serbia, The Taliban and The Iraqi Insurgents".
Both formulas broke down
 . Disciplined, dedicated and prepared enemies to not get "Shocked and Awed" easily. They can also absorb a whole lot of bombing strikes. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 20:06
|
i have seen dozens of pics of ships taken out by stukas, are they all propaganda? like i said, they could cover the channel harbours. i don't know if the Home Fleet can operate from Scapa Flow against German ships in the channel, its quite a distance they have to cover which allows for u-boats for example to spot them and inform the luftwaffe. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 12:32
In order for the Luftwaffe to interdict the Channel several conditions would have been necessary:
1. Available aircraft - that means aircraft that would not participate as ground support for the landing forces.
2. Proper inteligence - The Condors and the subs would have been the main sources.
3. Rapid response - if the transports get to the bottom, sinking the attacking ships is no consolation.
You seem to agree that at the time the Ju87 was the best airplane available for the Germans for anti-ship attacks. But the Stuka was also their ground support aircraft. Also, different types of bombs are required for the ground attack and anti-ship strikes.
I think two RN task forces, one in the North Sea and West of the Channel, mainly comprised of destroyers and cruisers, fast ships, would have been a major problem for the Germans. The speed would have allowed those to reach the transport area and to stage an attack at dusk. If the fleet of transports gets mauled then the Germans would not be able to supply their troops on the british soil. If you also throw the big guns and flattops into the mix you do realize that the chances for the Germans to protect their transports from the attacks of the RN are quite slim. If the RAF can still pose a threat (especially to the Stukas) then the invasion is impossible.
|