Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

[otisabuser2]

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

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."

[petgod1]

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.

[jcjordan]

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.

[SMK-at-work]

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!!!!!

[tblersch]

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.

[SMK-at-work]

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!!

[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

[petgod1]

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".
[&:]

[Hartford688]

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.

[Mannock]

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.

[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 ?

[jjjanos]

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.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Hartford688

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 ?

[Hard Sarge]

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

[petgod1]

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!

[Hard Sarge]

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

[otisabuser2]

[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.

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.

[Mannock]

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.

[SMK-at-work]

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!

[wesy]

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