Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 12:03:59 AM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

This story was in the UK press some weeks ago. Copied this from the Guardian newspaper......

quote:

Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

Audrey Gillan
Thursday August 24, 2006
The Guardian

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few," said Winston Churchill in praise of the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain. But as the 66th anniversary of the firefight in the skies approaches, some of the country's top military historians have claimed it was the Royal Navy rather than the RAF that saved Britain from invasion by the Germans in the autumn of 1940.

The three military historians who run the high command course at the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham, near Swindon, have concluded that the Battle of Britain became an overblown myth and that the credit for keeping Hitler at bay should have gone to the navy.
In an article published in the journal History Today, headlined Pie in the Sky, Andrew Gordon, head of maritime history at the college, said: "It really is time to put away this enduring myth. To claim that Germany failed to invade in 1940 because of what was done by phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command is hogwash. The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet."

But Bill Bond, founder of the Battle of Britain Historical Society, said: "There's always somebody trying to rewrite this historical period. Most of it's nonsense. Without air cover the Luftwaffe bombers would have smashed all the ports. The divebombers would have just blasted navy ships out of the water. Unopposed, the Luftwaffe could have done what it liked. To suggest that the Battle of Britain is a myth is nonsense."

Post #: 1

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 12:39:34 AM

petgod1

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/11/2006
Status: offline

Yes i recall this article. Load of pish.

The 3 idiots at Shrivenham are indeed preaching this to make a name for themselves, however the far more respected historians at RMA Sandhurst do not agree.

The RN did indeed contribute to stopping the invasion, as did Bomber Command, however it was the RAF Fighter Command that stopped the Luftwaffe. Without control of the skies the German Navy wcould not challenge the RN in the channel so the bulk of the credit must go to 11 Group.

Dr Andrew Gordon is slightly biased as he is head of maritime history at the college.

< Message edited by petgod1 -- 9/28/2006 12:48:18 AM >

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 2

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 12:50:05 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

It's something more than pish

but agree as w/o air superiority the Germans wouldn't have invaded. If they had defeated the RAF then the RN major assets would've had to run & hide far from the channel due to threat of Luftwaffe bombing/sinking them, effectively taking them out of the battle but would see some raids by RN to slow down the buildup of beacheads once invasion had happened.

(in reply to petgod1)

Post #: 3

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 2:49:56 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Even with air superiority the RN would have massacred any invasion fleet - the German plan called for the large transport ships to anchor off the coast of Kent for 3 days - imagine what night time destroyer attacks would have done??!!

the RN would have been based outside 109 escort range but well within easy sailing time for night attacks on hte Roadsteads, and at the time the LW didn't actually have a significant anti-sea capability anyway

but in fact there was never any chance of the British "losing" the BoB anyway - but it is important to remember that no-one knew this at the time.

As far as the Brits were concerned they were defending their country against the largest military in hte world, one that had already performed feats no-one had dreamed about.� And they didnt' think they had enough to do it - but what military ever thinks it has enough.....except for Goering of course!!

For example:
The RAF was worried when its pilot numbers fell to 1 1/2 per fighter - but the LW never had MORE than 1.1 pilots per 109!
The RAF never had less than 600 spits & Hurricanes serviceable in squadrons - LW 109 numbers were less than 300 serviceable by the end of September.
German fighter production was about 180-200 109's per month, plus about 40-50 110's IIRC.� British fighter production get to 450 Spitfires & hurricanes/month during August/September.
The RAF never had less than 100 Spitfires and Hurricanes in reserve (ie not with squadrons)
No British sector airfield was put out of action for more than 24 hours - many were seriously damaged of course, and many facilities and command/control capabilities damaged and destroyed, but the airfields weer not rendered U/S.
Fighter command did have plans to "retire" 11 group "behind" London if pressure got too much.� But they would ahve done so long before the RAF was "out of action" and they would have been ready to attack Sealion - and German plans to defend Sealion would have failed the same way that all other air defence systems failed in WW2 when all they could do was patrol over likely target areas - ie the Germans didn't have radar control.

so with 20/20 hindsight it is quite easy to see that the BoB was never going to be lost anyway.

However IMO that doesn't make the heroism of hte RAF any less - they did not know any of this!!!!!

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 9/28/2006 2:52:39 AM >

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 4

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 5:20:39 AM

tblersch

Posts: 77
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline

If the Luftwaffe achieved air superiority/supremacy over the Channel and invaded, the RN would most certainly have sortied against the invasion fleet, and to hell with losses. There is NO WAY the Home Fleet runs and hides in the face of a direct threat to the survival of the Crown and Empire. The Luftwaffe - any air force, really (witness Leyte) - couldn't deny entry of fleet units into the Channel, the most it could do is make it prohibitively expensive. And I suggest that "prohibitively expensive" is not in the RN's vocabulary when the Islands are threatened directly. Even today.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 5

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 7:04:00 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Yes indeed.� In many ways it is unfortunate that Sealion was not attempted - the total loss of 250,000+ German soldiers plus the damage doen to the German economy from the loss of 20% of it's Rhine Barges at the end of 1940 makes for an interesting "what if" scenario!!

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 9/28/2006 7:05:02 AM >

(in reply to tblersch)

Post #: 6

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 3:22:27 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Keep dreaming

you not following all the plans

the GE take the 3 coastal Airfields with paratroops, and then start moving supplies and troops over on Ju 52/86s, that part of the coast is there, they can then move fighters to England and also Stukas

then what ever can move fast and unload fast, would be used to offload enough Armor to make a deference

the Barges and other slow ships are not even needed until later

the whole point and value of the battle was that once the Germen troops got to England, the English troops wouldn't be able to stand up to them

the RAF saved England, the Navy didn't do a thing, other then be a threat, AT THIS TIME

they had other uses for them, and they did a great job, but not during this battle, if the NAVY had lost there Main battle, there wouldn't of been a RAF for the middle and end part of the war

_____________________________

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 7

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 7:32:33 PM

petgod1

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/11/2006
Status: offline

I agree with HS. Although i take nothing away from the RN's later actions it did not contribute to stopping the GE.

If BoB had been lost I am sure the RN would of sacrificed every ship trying to stop an invasion but the point is that because the GE didn't achieve AS over southern England they cancelled the invasion.

So by the RAF winning the BoB they stopped the invasion!

Anything else is pure "what if".

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 8

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 9:45:03 PM

Hartford688

Posts: 261
Joined: 3/23/2004
From: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Keep dreaming

you not following all the plans

the GE take the 3 coastal Airfields with paratroops, and then start moving supplies and troops over on Ju 52/86s, that part of the coast is there, they can then move fighters to England and also Stukas

then what ever can move fast and unload fast, would be used to offload enough Armor to make a deference

the Barges and other slow ships are not even needed until later

the whole point and value of the battle was that once the Germen troops got to England, the English troops wouldn't be able to stand up to them

the RAF saved England, the Navy didn't do a thing, other then be a threat, AT THIS TIME

they had other uses for them, and they did a great job, but not during this battle, if the NAVY had lost there Main battle, there wouldn't of been a RAF for the middle and end part of the war

Given the pounding the German paras took on Crete - never again used in the airborne assault role due to the hammering they took - I doubt they would have had a happy time in the south of England. Nice theory, but airborne troops, no armour, supplied by air (and we're not talking the massive Allied C-47 fleets of 1944)...separated from support by the Channel, faced by a large army fighting on its own soil. Not a recipe for a happy time.

I'm not aware that the Germans had anything that could move fast, unload fast and carry armour. No LCTs for them.

< Message edited by Hartford688 -- 9/28/2006 9:48:02 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 9

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 9:48:21 PM

Mannock

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

But the invasion wasn't possible, even with Luftwaffe being superior in the sky over England. The Kriegsmarine knew this and hadn't even planned for an invasion of England. They didn't have enough warships to challenge the Royal Navy and most important of all, they didn't have enough sea worthy landing crafts to move over large army units.

Sealion was never plausible and the sensible portion of the German leadership was aware of this from the beginning.

This however doesn't negate the bravery of the Royal Air Force.

_____________________________

Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.

(in reply to petgod1)

Post #: 10

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 10:06:25 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

I have some sympathy with the view that the RN was not given due credit for preventing sealion.

When the invasion fleet sailed, it would have been the intervention of the RN that sunk or dispersed it. Their effect would have been far more destructive than that of the RAF. This is evidenced by the failure of the larger LW to prevent the allied evacuation of Dunkirk.

It is claimed that the wash from the RN destroyers alone would have been sufficient to capsize the Rhine barges in the Channel.

The RAF sucess was that they prevented the LW sweeping the RN forces to ports too far north to intervene in the invasion.

In fact they did better than that. They prevented the LW gaining any superiority in the air over the southern UK. Without that any invasion attempt seemed doomed to failure.

HS your airbourne plan sounds interesting. It certainly features in the humourous cartoons of the period. I was not aware that this was seriously planned in Sealion. I do not beleive that there were the paratroops or air transport to carry this out at this time ?

(in reply to petgod1)

Post #: 11

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 10:47:49 PM

jjjanos

Posts: 52
Joined: 4/11/2002
From: Wheaton, MD
Status: offline

quote:

Sealion was never plausible and the sensible portion of the German leadership was aware of this from the beginning.

1. Except the sensible military leaders weren't the leadership. The head honcho was the guy with the mustache.

2. Norway was pulled off against long odds and Royal Navy control of the air.

3. Yep, the presence of the RN stopped any invasion and it was the lack of air superiority that allowed the RN the possibility of operating in the Channel.

4. Had the RAF been knocked out and an invasion attempted, the RN sortie would have been nothing less than what the IJN did at Leyte. They'd have thrown everything they had into it and to heck with the losses. Interesting to speculate what the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic would have been had the RN taken heavy losses.

(in reply to Mannock)

Post #: 12

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 11:44:06 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartford688

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Keep dreaming

you not following all the plans

the GE take the 3 coastal Airfields with paratroops, and then start moving supplies and troops over on Ju 52/86s, that part of the coast is there, they can then move fighters to England and also Stukas

then what ever can move fast and unload fast, would be used to offload enough Armor to make a deference

the Barges and other slow ships are not even needed until later

the whole point and value of the battle was that once the Germen troops got to England, the English troops wouldn't be able to stand up to them

the RAF saved England, the Navy didn't do a thing, other then be a threat, AT THIS TIME

they had other uses for them, and they did a great job, but not during this battle, if the NAVY had lost there Main battle, there wouldn't of been a RAF for the middle and end part of the war

Given the pounding the German paras took on Crete - never again used in the airborne assault role due to the hammering they took - I doubt they would have had a happy time in the south of England. Nice theory, but airborne troops, no armour, supplied by air (and we're not talking the massive Allied C-47 fleets of 1944)...separated from support by the Channel, faced by a large army fighting on its own soil. Not a recipe for a happy time.

I'm not aware that the Germans had anything that could move fast, unload fast and carry armour. No LCTs for them.

got to disagree, I do not think the English on the coast at this time, could come close to matching the Troops that were on Crete, for morale and weapons (and at Crete they had just retreated from the mainland and lost a lot of gear)

also, what was needed to move most of the GE tanks ? they didn't need massive shipping, they were light and small

the GB Army needed the RAF win as bad as anyone, to regroup and regain there morale, they were pretty close to a beaten force (most of it due to there leadership, not the action of the troops themselfs)

I always loved some of the Wargames played out after the war, the GE have command of the air, and what is the first thing to happen ? , the RAF intercepts the Para drop over the channel ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hartford688)

Post #: 13

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/28/2006 11:51:33 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2

I have some sympathy with the view that the RN was not given due credit for preventing sealion.

When the invasion fleet sailed, it would have been the intervention of the RN that sunk or dispersed it. Their effect would have been far more destructive than that of the RAF. This is evidenced by the failure of the larger LW to prevent the allied evacuation of Dunkirk.

It is claimed that the wash from the RN destroyers alone would have been sufficient to capsize the Rhine barges in the Channel.

The RAF sucess was that they prevented the LW sweeping the RN forces to ports too far north to intervene in the invasion.

In fact they did better than that. They prevented the LW gaining any superiority in the air over the southern UK. Without that any invasion attempt seemed doomed to failure.

HS your airbourne plan sounds interesting. It certainly features in the humourous cartoons of the period. I was not aware that this was seriously planned in Sealion. I do not beleive that there were the paratroops or air transport to carry this out at this time ?

one of the last sets of ideas on the paras, came from the LW it self, forget right now if it was Sperrel or Kissering (spelling, it is late) , also there main ideas was to hell with the waiting, drop the troops and the rest of the forces will pick up the pace (you couldn't of stopped a night time airdrop)

would losses of Crete levels been takable ? sure even worse, just to gain the airfields, but I do not think they would of been that bad

then it would of been the Goverment's turn, the RAF and the victory gave the Goverment the time and the backbone to stick it out

I am not saying that the RN wasn't importent, and didn't have background effect on the battle, only they didn't win it, since it never happened

_____________________________

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 14

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 12:09:01 AM

petgod1

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I am not saying that the RN wasn't importent, and didn't have background effect on the battle, only they didn't win it, since it never happened

My entire point! How can you claim credit for doing squat whilst denying the credit to those that fought! Thats like saying the French won in Iraq in 2003 because they made threats of action and not US/Uk who did the fighting!

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 15

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 12:16:43 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Sorry guys, I think my lack of writting skills is betaying me here in this post, I do not think the ideas I am trying to get across are getting there, so my posts are coming across the wrong way

_____________________________

(in reply to petgod1)

Post #: 16

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 1:09:23 AM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

[ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I am not saying that the RN wasn't importent, and didn't have background effect on the battle, only they didn't win it, since it never happened

My history books tell me the RN was in the battle. They were patrolling the Channel nightly and bombarding the Invasion ports. They were a clear and presnet threat to the Germans who knew ( obviously ) that this was happening and found themselves pretty powerless to stop them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

also, what was needed to move most of the GE tanks ? they didn't need massive shipping, they were light and small

But you need somewhere like a port to land them. Your scenario states the paras take the coastal airfields ( Hawkinge and Lympne ? ). The East Kent coast is high chalk cliffs and the harbours were not undefended and prepared for demolition. Where are your ships going to unload ? Given that they are not LSTs then they will need quaysides somewhere.

The whole Sea-lion air-assault thing is a pie in the sky risk worse than Arnhem, with a fraction of that force, and with XXX Corps across the Channel.

< Message edited by otisabuser2 -- 9/29/2006 1:11:02 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 17

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 2:43:54 AM

Mannock

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjjanos
1. Except the sensible military leaders weren't the leadership. The head honcho was the guy with the mustache.

2. Norway was pulled off against long odds and Royal Navy control of the air.

3. Yep, the presence of the RN stopped any invasion and it was the lack of air superiority that allowed the RN the possibility of operating in the Channel.

4. Had the RAF been knocked out and an invasion attempted, the RN sortie would have been nothing less than what the IJN did at Leyte. They'd have thrown everything they had into it and to heck with the losses. Interesting to speculate what the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic would have been had the RN taken heavy losses.

1. Reader was quite sensible and he was in charge of the navy. He knew from the beginning that an invasion wasn't possible.

2. You can't compare Norway '40 with Britain '41. Britain was already at war with Germany and was getting pounded by the Luftwaffe so they knew quite clearly what the Germans wanted to do. Norway didn't get such an "aerial warning". The German victory was also due to a good portion of luck combined with British/French bad planning an indecisive leadership, especially around Narvik.

Comparing Norway with Britain is not possible.

3. Well, I wouldn't say the RN stopped it, since the Germans never tried going across. But if the Germans had tried it, the RN would have stopped, even if they had taken heavy losses.

4. You can of course only speculate at what would have happened, but Kriegsmarine had taken a hard toll at the battle of Norway an would have had very few ships to escort the barges (yes barges, no landing crafts here). I can see nothing else than a slaughter of the Germans, even if the losses for the RN would have been heavy.

_____________________________

Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.

(in reply to jjjanos)

Post #: 18

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 3:49:42 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

There weer elements of 27 British and Commonwealth Divisions in the UK during the BOB - including Canadians and New Zealanders....the later of whom would shortly be fighting German para's on Crete....;)

However it should be remembered that at Crete the Germans also landed an airborne division by transport - something they could not do in 1940.

German tanks did require specialised craft to get them ashore - they might have been light tanks but they were still much heavier than standard civilian vehicles of teh time, and Pz-III's were not THAT light.� they had reinforced barges to carry tehm and special water-proofing and floating snorkels to wade them ashore across beaches.

The UK also had a few hundred Matilda II's still in the UK - seveal times more than they had at Aras a few months previously.

All in all there was no chance of Sealion succeeding...period...IMO of course! :)

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 9/29/2006 3:51:48 AM >

(in reply to Mannock)

Post #: 19

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 10:17:34 AM

wesy

Posts: 224
Joined: 2/10/2002
From: Berkeley, CA
Status: offline

There is no way they could be successful. What experience did the Germans have with Assault Landings (doctrinal and practical experience) in river barges (lack of suitable equipment) and think of the mercantile fleet it would need to supply the folks that managed to get ashore - while being exposed to the Home Fleet, let alone any other surface units and submarines? How could they prep with Naval Gunfire? Someone mentioned the successful invasion of Norway, but the Germans lost the Blucher (1 of 3 CAs),10 destroyers previously they lost the Graf Spee (1 of 3 upgunned cruisers) - that's a significant portion of their surface fleet. Look at the prepatory action the US did to assault Tarawa, Pelelieu, Iwo Jima etc. the fleet train was very large. Even with this experience, the US dreaded the thought of having to invade Kyushu. The US had air superiority and the invasion fleet would have been ENORMOUS, let alone the fleet train etc. I think the US allocated Fourteen divisions for this operation. The island of Kyushu is smaller than the UK. The US was THE master of Assault Landings. Although not as fanatical as the Japanese, I think the UK might fight a bit harder for the homeland :)

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 20

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 11:03:18 AM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

My personnal view was that the Germans were hoping that once the invasion will be doable, they won't have to do it, before Britain will start diplomatic talks before that.
Also I guess German commanders were still influenced by the pre-wat theory that air bombings may win a war alone, no need of troops, etc.... By the way RAF and USAAF leaders still believed the same thing four years later....

As for the actual chance of success, I think they were very slim.... An airborne assault will IMOO just see the German airborne force destroyed for nothing... Even if the German had managed to land and take a beachhead (something that will be bloody but possible), supplying it will be very hard.

After the loss of hundred of Ju52 in Holland in May 1940 I doubt a mass airborne assault was still a possibility. And even with hundred of Ju 52s you can't bring as much ammunitions and war material than with some ships. So the control of the sea was the key factor, and I doubt the RN would have left it. By the way the RN fought hard in Crete in 1941, spending a week in an area where Luftwaffe ruled the air and accepting losses. They will certainly have done the same, and in fact more, to save Britain.

A last point: the Royal Navy fought during the BoB. I'm quite sure more sailors died in this time period than members of the RAF (including Bomber and Coastal Command). They weren't in the news headlines, but they certainly were on the frontline, either in the Channel or the Atlantic.

(in reply to wesy)

Post #: 21

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 2:04:45 PM

captskillet

Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline

quote:

By the way RAF and USAAF leaders still believed the same thing four years later....

I dont think that Harris or Arnold had any illusions that bombing alone was going to make the Nazis quit. They viewed it (strategic bombing) as it was, a tool to help win/shorten the war.

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 22

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 9/29/2006 3:44:07 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

You guys are easy :)

at least no one been calling me a total moron yet :)

easiest way to rile some feathers is to say the GB could of lost the battle

_____________________________

(in reply to captskillet)

Post #: 23

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/1/2006 2:31:19 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

HardSARGE said:
You guys are easy :)

at least no one been calling me a total moron yet :)

easiest way to rile some feathers is to say the GB could of lost the battle

Are you now saying that you were just winding us up ?

Is so was a very clever ruse of yours. To use an Anglophophic angle and put forward a theory totally in contradiction of the actual evidence was a masterstroke. Totally in line with the kind of thing you would have said anyway. . .

Very, very cunning.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 24

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/1/2006 4:05:21 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Ahh but that is the point, if I would of said the GB had won the battle before the battle started, you would of believed me

_____________________________

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 25

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 1:01:24 AM

jjjanos

Posts: 52
Joined: 4/11/2002
From: Wheaton, MD
Status: offline

quote:

1. Reader was quite sensible and he was in charge of the navy. He knew from the beginning that an invasion wasn't possible.

Unless you are suggesting that Reader was going to stage a coup if ordered to make an invasion, I stand by what I said - the fellow with the mustache was in command of the Kriegsmarine.

The idea of a the Wacht am Rhein offensive was completely discounted because everyone knew that Runsteadt was too sensible to throw away the last of his mobile reserves, but everyone forgot that it wasn't Runsteadt that held ultimate command.

Though I will give you that at this point, the Corporal probably still held sufficient trust in his professional officer corps to take their recommendation that an invasion was doomed to fail. Then again, I bet he was willing to trade the entire Kriegsmarine to defeat the UK. He didn't need a navy once the UK was gone - destroyers being little use on the Steppes.

(in reply to Mannock)

Post #: 26

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 2:57:16 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

He didn't have much of a navy in the first place!!

Remeber that at this time the Kriegsmarine has little in the way of heavy ships at this time. Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Geinsenau are all yet to be finished.

I did a summary once - IIRC they had no battleships, a couple of heavy cruisers, a light cruiser or 2, about 25 destroyers and old torpedo boats (small destroyers, not E-boats), about 25 submarines - many of which would have to be taken from the training fleet and were small Type II's. the KM was so short of boats it was going to use a pre-dreadnought in use as a gunnery training vessel as a battery by beaching it - it didnt' have it's 12" guns any more tho......

the RN had 25 cruisers and over 80 destroyers in home waters.

plus a few capital ships......

(in reply to jjjanos)

Post #: 27

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 3:58:32 AM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

The bizarre thing about this whole story in the headlines above is the it is not news.

I happened across a copy of Operation Sealion by Peter Fleming ( yes, James Bond's uncle ) in a bookshop a few days ago. In it was the familiar tale that the RN was strong enough to have defeated the landings had they have taken place. There are indications that Churchill shared this confidence.

This book was first printed in 1957 ! Almost 50 years ago.

It seems that over the intervening years we have collectively forgotten the strength of the wartime RN and universally beleived that the RAF alone stood between us and invasion.

This new account is not re-writing history. It's trying to re-educate us on what happened.

Strange how history can be manipulated or miss-remembered.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 28

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 5:21:10 PM

oi_you_nutter

Posts: 418
Joined: 10/28/2004
From: from Bristle now living in Kalifornia
Status: offline

both the RAF and RN were needed to protect from an invasion: the RN did a good job, it was not destroyed and the invasion did not occur. all the armed services contributed. the RAF got the glory... so it sounds like sour grapes from the RN point of view.

but, here is my idea of the possible invasion scenarios with different RN and RAF capabilities:

German strategy against a strong RAF and RN opposition:
defeat the RAF so they can defeat the RN when it attacks the invasion fleet.

German strategy against a weak RAF and strong RN opposition:
get local air superiority over the weak RAF and defeat the RN while keeping them both away from the invasion fleet.

German strategy against a strong RAF and weak RN opposition:
get local air superiority over the invasion area and defeat the weak RN while keeping them both away from the invasion fleet.

the Luftwaffe was the Germans strength, and it needed to cripple either or both the RN and RAF, and the Luftwaffe had to do that before it could tackle the British home defense army... and with luck and skill the British won because the Luftwaffe failed.

the RAF got the glory, while the RN and the home defense forces didn't, so here's to the unsung heroes of 1940. the RN should be glad, all the recognition the Army got was the "Dads Army !" sitcom.

famous quotes

"We're doomed!"

"Do you think that's wise sir?"

"Captain Mainwaring !"

"Your name will also go on zee list. What is it? "
"Don't tell him, Pike."

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 29

RE: Historians downgrade Battle of Britain - 10/3/2006 9:42:30 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

The situation was similar to a soccer team.

The British Army was the goalkeeper. The last resort. The goalie was previously well regarded, but a little off form lately. There was nagging doubts about his fitness, and people were generally righting him off.

The defence was the Royal Navy. The UK had the strongest defence in Europe. To stay in the competition the UK had only to make sure of a draw. With their strong defence the UK was confident of pulling this off, barring some bizarre unforseen bad luck.

The midfield were the RAF. They were considered weaker the the German midfield who were known to field extra players in this position.

Then what happened was unexpected. The UK midfield performed admirallyand the LW poorly. The Germans displayed skill individually but didn't play well together. The ball never got into the UK half and the Germans were unable to score. The RAF got all the credit for a blinding game and keeping the UK in the competition. The Navy defenders never even got to touch the ball in that game and were forgotten by history.

I think in this scenario, the attackers were Churchill and Hitler. Churchill of course scored.

(in reply to oi_you_nutter)

Post #: 30