Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
who really won the battle of britain?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by superfern (U3137729) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Germany started off with more planes therefore lost more planes as a result- so how can we measure who actually won the battle and why?
-
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Big clue, chum. You are reading this in English.
-
Message 3
Posted by superfern (U3137729) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
how can we explain that the British lost comparatively more planes though ? Thanks for the sarcasm (!)
-
Message 4
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
superfern,
Battles won or lost are not measured simply by total number of casualties or by proportion of casualties. Battles are (usually) fought not simply to inflict losses upon the enemy but for other strategic objectives. It's just that in order to achieve the other objectives it normally involves destroying the opposing forces ability to fight. (The tactics).
So, look at what the Luftwaffe was trying to achieve strategically, air superiority, if not supremacy over SE England and the Channel.
Did they achieve it, no, so they lost. Looking at the tactical side and comparing losses then the best description probably is a tactical draw with a strategic British victory.
Cheers AA. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
One other little thing. Brit pilot shot down over England could be back in a new plane the same day. German pilot "For you the war is over." The other way round of course when we started taking the war to the Germans. One thing we were never short of was planes. Pilots yes, hence the introduction of poles etc, against Dowdings will. Then of course Hitler took his bombers off their main job of destroying the RAF and bombed London. The Film Battle of Britain came close to the truth, except there wer more Hurricanes than Spits in the battle. As well of course as some Gladiators and Defiants.
Fred -
Message 6
Posted by superfern (U3137729) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Thank you -this is useful - a clear conclusion reached at last!
-
Message 7
Posted by philhk (U3109337) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
Dear All,
as I understand it originally the main objective of of the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain was to achieve air superiority in order to enable Hitlers operation Sealion, the invasion of the British isles to be launched succesfully.
At first whilst Germany still had a larger air force & targeted military installations things still looked as though they might have favoured the aggressor but as Britain gradually achieved parity in numbers & then produced larger numbers of more advanced aircraft such as the Spitfire & Hurricane the tide began to turn.
The biggest mistake by the Germans appears to me to have been the change of objective from attacking military installations to the heavy bombing of large population centres as in the London blitz. The effect of this seems to be that instead of cowering the population into submission, (which I think Hitler had hoped for) the opposite was achieved & the average Britons resolve to continue the war intensified. At the same time the Luftwaffes failure to destroy vital military installations allowed Britain to finally achieve air superiority & the Luftwaffe was never allowed to recover.
As a result operation Sealion could not succeed & was indefinitely postponed & instead Hitler turned his attention to operation Barbarossa even though, with Britain still in the game, this meant a two front war which he had originally hoped to avoid.
There is no doubt who won the battle of Britain, the British & Commonwealth air crew, no doubt also in my mind who lost it, thats Adolph Hitler whose dubious grasp of strategy as well as the nature of the British people allowed us the breathing space necessary to ultimately prevail.
Hope that wasn`t too long winded,
Kind regards,
Phil. -
Message 8
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
An interesting thread - I think it was definately a tactical victory as the RAF was left in possetion of the "battlefield", Southern England.
Nice to see the Poles mentioned - I have recently read three books by English pilots who praise the Poles to the skies, mainly because compared to the average RAF new pilot they were VERY experienced indeed. All that desperate fighting in PZLs counted for something, and when they got a Hurricane they loved it!! -
Message 9
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Yes I forgot Fred, didn't a Gladiator have the first victory or something?? Glad they were not the main type though, things would have been grim indeed for the RAF if they had been.
By the way I live in walking distance of Kenley aerodrome (now used for gliders but still MOD land) and its quite moving to think of what went on there when you are having a walk around. -
Message 10
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Monday, 6th February 2006
The other big problem from a German perspective was fuel, by the time the Me 109's had flown over the channel from France, they could only have stayed in the air "dogfighting" a matter of minutes before having to fly back to France.
Obviously British fighters had the advantage of taking of from home bases and consequently could be in the air a lot longer.
The Germans really could of done with a couple of Aircraft Carriers in the North sea or English Channel to have pulled it off. But then rasies the queation of whether or not the German Navy Could of taken on the RN (probably not)
Age old question though what was the best fighter the Me 109 or the Spitfire?
My understanding was the Me 109 was better armed but the Spitfire had greater manoeuvrability? -
Message 11
Posted by Spitfire1940 (U3242695) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
Luftwaffe pilots believe to this day that they didn't lose the Battle of Britain, because their high command chose to withdraw in preparation for Barbarossa.
Its a simialr argument to the one the Germans used after the Battle of Jutland, when despite destroying more ships they knew they had been lucky and withdrew before they could be annihilated by the much larger Br fleet. Britain maintained their mastery of the seas and the Germany fleet never left port again.
The fact remains they did not achieve air superiority, the key pre-requsite for a successful invasion... a lesson not lost when preparing for D-day.
They achieved it for a small period during the attacks on airfields and radar stations.
However there are a few misconceptions about the battle. The Germans were always going to find it hard to achieve victory because
a)The RAF had less aircraft but the key to victory was the fighters and both sides were comparatively equal. It was the bombers and stukas which swelled the Luftwaffes ranks
b) British fighter pilots could fly more sorties in a day than their luftwaffe counterparts
c)Radar acted as a force multiplyer.
d) Dowding and Park knew air superiority was the key to victory , thus could choose to avoid comabat in order to maintain fighter strength, which they did.
Hence why the luftwaffe turned their attentions away from the aerodromes of Southern England to London. This was not a blunder by Goering but a neccesary tactical decision, for they needed to knock fighter commnad out before any invasion could take place. The RAF could not be seen to not defend London, but at the same time made the Luftwafes bombers more susceptable to RAF attacks for the fight escorts had only 25min flying time over london before returning to france.
Consequently the RAF was able to make more decisive attacks and German losses became unsustainable.
In reality it is not so much the fact the RAF won, which has rightly been propelled by Churchills words of the few into stuff of Legend, but the fact the Luftaffe came so close to vvictory. -
Message 12
Posted by CakeMix (U3231764) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
A recent book 'Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality.'
From one of the reviewers it says:
Here in the Battle of Britain we find the first signs that the famed "unstoppable" Nazi juggernaut was not infallible, that it could be met on its own terms and defeated, plane by plane, raid by raid, and campaign by campaign, and denied its aggressive objectives by a determined and resourceful opponent.Β -
Message 13
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 17th February 2006
I heard that the Italians sent a squadron to help the Germans and that the British pilots were shocked to see that their opposition in one sortie was a squadron of biplanes. Naturally, the Italians were massacred. Is that true?
-
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 17th February 2006
I heard that the Italians sent a squadron to help the Germans and that the British pilots were shocked to see that their opposition in one sortie was a squadron of biplanes. Naturally, the Italians were massacred. Is that true?Β
Yes. I tink I first read that in Bob Stanford-Tuck's biography years ago. He was one of those who encountered the Italians. -
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 17th February 2006
Will have to look that up. The Gladiator proved in malta, that in the hands of a good pilot, it was a useful aircraft. In fact the Hurricane wasn't that much faster in the climb. As for Spit V 109, it would depend on which mark. The Hurricane could turn tighter than the 109 Of course both Spit and Hurricane suffered in the esrlier marks because they were carb not injection. I remember reading that one idea used to give the Hurri a longer range, was something called The Slip Wing Hurricane. They had a second wing carrying extra fuel fitted above the cockpit, that was slipped as it emptied, or combat was called for. Interesting idea. but it must have put the fear of god up the enemy to suddenly see a wing falling off.
Fred -
Message 16
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 17th February 2006
I remember reading that one idea used to give the Hurri a longer range, was something called The Slip Wing Hurricane. They had a second wing carrying extra fuel fitted above the cockpit, that was slipped as it emptied, or combat was called for. Interesting idea. but it must have put the fear of god up the enemy to suddenly see a wing falling off.
Ήσ°ω±π»εΜύ
Can't have done much for the pilot either!!!!!
Cheers AA -
Message 17
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 17th February 2006
......
I remember reading that one idea used to give the Hurri a longer range, was something called The Slip Wing Hurricane. They had a second wing carrying extra fuel fitted above the cockpit, that was slipped as it emptied, or combat was called for. Interesting idea. but it must have put the fear of god up the enemy to suddenly see a wing falling off.
Ήσ°ω±π»εΜύ
That seems to have been later in the war and never put into production or service.
MB -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
I remember in the 60s, reading a story about one being used. Must have been a one off, to see if the idea worked. Again, I remember seeing a plan of the Boulton Paul Defiant with 8 machine guns in the wings. But that never happened. Still back to the plot. The Bristol Blenham also saw some action in the B of B as a fighter, by adding a gun pack under the cockpit. You may as well put a BIG sign on it saying "Look at me I am a sitting duck. Although it would lead on to one of the best night fighters and all round strike aircraft made. The Whispering Death. The Beufighter.
Fred -
Message 19
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Agreed about the Beu Fred - in the Pacific they did a lot of good work and were deadly to Japanese barges in the Timor Sea.....The RAAF loved em!
Maybe the Defiant needed a 2500hp engine to haul that turret and the 8 guns around. And I have read somewhere that to hit something from a moving plane with a turret is very very difficult; something like 3% of bullets fired actually hit the target. -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
I must remind my character of that when he flies the Defiant into acton.
Work time.
Fred -
Message 21
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Tell him to watch his front!
-
Message 22
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
by the time the Me 109's had flown over the channel from France, they could only have stayed in the air "dogfighting" a matter of minutes before having to fly back to France....
Age old question though what was the best fighter the Me 109 or the Spitfire?
My understanding was the Me 109 was better armed but the Spitfire had greater manoeuvrability? Β -
Message 23
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Ooooops! Pressed post before writing my reply.
The Bf109 had up to ten minutes combat time over Britain (depending on how much work he had to do) in fact.
Overall, the Battle of Britain era Spitfire and Bf109E 'Emile' were evenly matched. Although the Spitfire had more machine-guns (eight .303 Brownings to the Emile's two 7.92mm MG15s), the Emile also mounted a pair of 20mm cannon (and in some cases a 30mm cannon in the nose, standard in the F models onwards), which fired explosuve shells and therefore made up the difference.
I understand the Spitfire had a tighter turn, but the Emile had better climbing ability, and was less prone to stalling. -
Message 24
Posted by koomartherammie (U2070074) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
I always use a cricketing term,a winning draw.For us of course.
-
Message 25
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
I remember in the 60s, reading a story about one being used. Must have been a one off, to see if the idea worked. Again, I remember seeing a plan of the Boulton Paul Defiant with 8 machine guns in the wings. But that never happened. Still back to the plot. The Bristol Blenham also saw some action in the B of B as a fighter, by adding a gun pack under the cockpit. You may as well put a BIG sign on it saying "Look at me I am a sitting duck. Although it would lead on to one of the best night fighters and all round strike aircraft made. The Whispering Death. The Beaufighter.
Ήσ°ω±π»εΜύ
The Defiant was just an idea that did not work because it was overtaken by events and developments in bombers. Perhaps in slightly different circumstances you can imagine the Defiant being used in a similar mode to the Luftwaffe's Schräge Musik later in the war.
MB -
Message 27
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Hi all,
Can I ask in relation to another post if any one can tell me what was the name of a British naval fighter that like the Defiant had it's guns in the rear? I can't for the life of me remember it (and I know it wasn't the Fulmar) Rock...something is coming to my mind as I type.
Thanks,
NewcFalcon -
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Try Roc.
-
Message 29
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Cheers mate - I was closer than I thought and I think now it was built by Bristol wasn't it?
Shall post this on the thread it needs to be on.
thank you
NewcFalcon -
Message 30
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Just to back up post on other thread, it was the Blackburn Roc, and was a variant of the Skua.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.