Historians downgrade Battle of Britain

[AmiralLaurent]

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.

[captskillet]

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.

[Hard Sarge]

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

[otisabuser2]

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. [;)]

[Hard Sarge]

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

[jjjanos]

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.

[SMK-at-work]

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......[8D]

[otisabuser2]

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.

[oi_you_nutter]

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!"

[otisabuser2]

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. [;)]

[Justascratch]

I have really enjoyed reading these posts! The topic certainly brings out the strategic planner in all of us. However, when you step back from strategy & tactics it is quite plain to see that the RN of that time was much like the US nuclear arsenal of the cold war period. It's very existance made the obvious outcome of a GE invasion attempt unthinkable. It wasn't required to act it prevented the envasion just because it existed & everyone knew GB would use it.

[otisabuser2]

Yes. But there was no certainty on the UK side at the time.

The British though, were very concerned that the Germans by some slip or ruse or unforseen circumstance pull the invasion off. They cleared France which was even beyond the original German expectations. In Norway the Germans slipped past the unwitting defences of a neutral country. In the Low Countries the germans made novel use of parachutists, gliders and disguised troops.

There was always the expectation that the Germans could pull off the unexpected.

The British did not know the Germans were short of parachutists or transport planes. Neither did they know that the two largest German battlecruisers were out of the action due to damage. They knew about the invasion barges in the channel ports, but thought they were not the serious force, just a diversion. They beleived the main ( sensible ) invasion fleet was massing and preparing beyond recon range in the Baltic with the battlecruisers. Out of sight, they would have had little warning when this fleet began to sail.

The British did not realise the Operation Sealion plan was only devised at the 11th hour with such a motley collection of vessels.

The original German Army plan estimated 40 German Divisions to be the number necessary to defeat the British Army. Then they found that there was only sufficient transport for 13 Divisions. Then they revised their plans and discovered that 13 Divisions would be enough to destroy the defenders. What kind of planning is that ?

[SMK-at-work]

I've never read anywhere that the Brits thought the Germans were preparing an invasion fleet in hte baltic - it was certainly not out of range of their recce a/c of the time.

[Hard Sarge]

Hey, OB is the BoB man, don't be messing with is info !

[SMK-at-work]

[:D] ain't messin' with nuthin' - but I did a 3rd year paper on the BoB, have a coupla books on Sealion, etc too....

[otisabuser2]

No problem SMK. Got quotes about the Baltic threat from the Fleming book and one other.

From early in BoB the British thought this the most credible threat. Accordingly a large part of the army was assigned to the East coast defence. Also more destroyers held east of Dover than south, in readiness.

This perception changed, but only slowly, when the barges massed in the Channel ports.

[timtom]

Watched a 1-hour program on the UK History Channel a couple of weeks back.

It was argued that the Kriegsmarine had basically done the math and concluded that even with complete air superiority they couldn't prevent the RN from breaking through to attack the invasion fleet (according to the program, the RN would be able to throw 80 destroyers, just to mention one category of craft, at an invasion). The Luftwaffe essentially concurred with this conclusion. This before the end of July '40.

Hence, it was argued, the subsequent operation was in the nature of a strategic bluff in hope of a negotiated peace.

[oi_you_nutter]

Operation Sealion always seems to create some very lively discussions, more than other what-ifs of WW2. especially as the scale of forces involved was small compared to other theatres or later battles.

perhaps it is because there are some many unknowns involved, what do others think ?

btw, i like the football (soccer) game analogy above, although i think the german striker (Hitler) scored an own goal while defending from a free kick by the substitute british striker (Churchill). the free kick was awarded after Chaimberlain was injured when tackled from behind by von Ribbentrop.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2

No problem SMK. Got quotes about the Baltic threat from the Fleming book and one other.

From early in BoB the British thought this the most credible threat. Accordingly a large part of the army was assigned to the East coast defence. Also more destroyers held east of Dover than south, in readiness.

This perception changed, but only slowly, when the barges massed in the Channel ports.

Ah.....so this was their perception before hte preparations for Sealion were known - well that's fair enough - after all in early 1940 the French and Belgians still controlled the other side of the Chanel so where else could a German invasion come from?

As for basing of destroyers - I dont' think that's actually important - Destroyers based at Harwich were outside Me-109 range - hence could only be bombed by unescorted bombers, or with 110'sas the only escort, and were within jsut a couple of hours sailing time of the nearest landing spots. There were other vbases within range of course, such as Sheerness and Plymouth, but the RN could effectively base itself outside LW range and still easily hit the intended roadsteads every night.

[matchwood]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

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.

Um er actually, they did. Harris told Churchill that the Germans would surrender once a certain tonnage had been dropped on German cities. When that tonnage was reached they carried on. It was only when forced to, that they deviated to attack other targets such as oil. Even with the Ultra information telling them what an effect some of the industry raids were having Harris insisted on city targets right to the end of the war.