The Battle of Britain

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.

Edited by Seko - 13-Feb-2008 at 16:30

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.

Originally posted by Scaevola 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?

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.

Originally posted by Sparten   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.

Again what military decisions did he take on his own without the advice and support of the Chiefs of Staff ?

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 ....

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.

Originally posted by Sparten GLCE2003, Actually I agree with the Gallopoli thing, the plan was the Admiraltys, the landing on the wrong beaches was the Aussies fault.

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.