Page 2 of 2
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:07 pm
by crsutton
Generally, stuff you see on the history channel is pretty weak. Yes all three points are valid but there are many other factors leading to the German setback in the Battle of Britian. Most significant was the state of the German airforce and the lack of German industrial capacity to rectify it.
Although the comparison between the spit and 109 as fighters can be argued, both fighters were short legged interceptors. The spit was fine for the job at hand but the fact that the 109 could not even range over half of the British Isles pretty much negates any advantage that it had. You can't win a war without projecting airpower over enemy airspace and as a "air superiorty" fighter, the 109 was a total failure-leaving the ME110 as the only alternative for close escort, and we know how that worked out. Germany went into the battle with some very good tactical bombers but no real battle winning strategic bomber. Say what you want, but it all comes down to payload when you want to close down an enemy and the German bombers of the era just did not have it.
Combine this with the fact that the Brits were actually outproducing the Germans in aircraft at the time of the battle and you can see where things were heading. I know that a lot is made of how close the Germans were to closing down the British air defenses, and then they made a critical change in tactics. However, I doubt that German industry could meet the demands to sustain the effort much longer-not to mention to provide the additional planes needed to support any invasion.
I don't think the battle was a close as some would.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:56 pm
by wworld7
ORIGINAL: skrewball
Frankly I feel any WWII topic should be welcomed here.
Well I feel this is the WITP Forum and threads outdside this theater should be moved to a more correct forum or the General Forum if there is not one.
IMO, better organization makes easier reading for everybody.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:01 pm
by Anthropoid
ORIGINAL: pasternakski
ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Not sure the best forum to put this on on Matrix . . . I know there is some Battle of Britain type game in development,
Why put it here? This forum is clearly titled "War in the Pacific," which is a game. You obviously don't want to talk about a game, as you immediately start wandering off in some ostensibly history-related direction.
So take it to the "General Discussion" forum.
Oh. If you're looking for a forum about a Battle of Britain game in development, try going to the "Games in Development" category and check out the one called "Battle of Britain."
There's a lot of smart guys who hang out on the WiTP forums who I never see posting in other sections, and I enjoy hearing what smart guys have to say.
ADDIT:
ORIGINAL: Mynok
ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
(they show a comparison of a line graph of number of luftwaffe planes and number of Brit and at some point about 3 months post September the Luftwaffe line, which is on this steady downward slope for the whole figure, crosses the Brit line which is showing slight flux up and down but basically steady-state, and the luftwaffe are kapoot). They then haev Bengay or whoever he is asking the other guy "So it doesn't matter that the Luftwaffe changed to city targets? They were depleting themselves too quickly no matter what they were doing? And at the point in time where conventional wisdom suggests the Fighter Command was 'close to being on the ropes' they were actually already in the process of winning?" and the computer simulation guy shakes his head: yep, thats right, they would've won no matter had the luftwaffe kept bombing the airfields or not.
Where's the proof that the British line would have kept going straight. Most of the evidence I've read is that fighter command was in desparate straights to keep a viable force in the air right about the time the LW switched methods. It allowed the RAF to 'catch a breather'.
Its a good question Mynok, and I certainly don't know the literature well enough to answer, but it sounds like several of these guys-=-or at least Crsutton!-=-concur that the idea that Brits were on the ropes might not have been so accurate.
But your RHoenig does seem important. The computer model they talked about in the episode was just focused on planes, not personnel.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:22 pm
by Mynok
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Combine this with the fact that the Brits were actually outproducing the Germans in aircraft at the time of the battle and you can see where things were heading. I know that a lot is made of how close the Germans were to closing down the British air defenses, and then they made a critical change in tactics. However, I doubt that German industry could meet the demands to sustain the effort much longer-not to mention to provide the additional planes needed to support any invasion.
But the Germans did sustain bombing for a good while longer, even though they changed tactics to be sure. If they hadn't, it is quite possible their losses would have dropped dramatically as the British air defenses lost cohesiveness. And RHoenig is quite right to point out that pilots were probably more critical than planes. It's of course true that the Germans were bleeding air crew faster, but they were wearing the Brit pilots to ribbons...a commodity that was much harder to replace.
It's all speculation of course, but fun nonetheless. [8D]
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:46 am
by rtrapasso
an integrated air defense system, which one scholar at one point is quoted to say "the first internet."
Aside from gross exaggeration for marketing purposes, i don't see how this could be called "the first internet"... sensor stations linked by a network of electronic communications? Well, they had that in the US Civil War, iirc (telegraphs-> HQ)... unless somehow attacking airplanes were necessary to make an internet. [:'(]
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:16 am
by Anthropoid
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
an integrated air defense system, which one scholar at one point is quoted to say "the first internet."
Aside from gross exaggeration for marketing purposes, i don't see how this could be called "the first internet"... sensor stations linked by a network of electronic communications? Well, they had that in the US Civil War, iirc (telegraphs-> HQ)... unless somehow attacking airplanes were necessary to make an internet. [:'(]
Oh, I'm not here to advocate or defend the claims made, just bring the truth so it can set you free [:D] . . . but yeah, I tend to agree. It does raise the question doesn't it? If a network of civilian observers linked into a aircraft command network, and a central aircraft deployment headquarters constitutes an "internet" then what other preceding information distribution and reaction systems also might constitute an internet? Telegraph does come to mind, but heck, didn't the Romans have a fairly extensive system of signal towers set up to convey messages rapidly across the Empire in some places?
I guess to get the full answer that the guy who actually said it in the episode might give you'd have to read his book. Of course he has a book! Why would have have been on History Channel in the first place if not to sell his book!
Here's the link to the amazon page for it
The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain, by Stephen Bungay
ADDIT: now I'm feeling like I started this thread to help Bungay sell his book, which is definitely not the case. But it does seem that the central messages in that episode which I found surprising were primarily coming from his book, based on this Amazon reviewers comments.
Unlike Americans, who have an uncommon love of bragging about everything from the trivial to the terrific, the English have a fondness for understatement that tends of ignore the reality of their accomplishments.
When the Soviets asked Field Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt, the Wehrmacht's most senior operational commander, which battle he considered as the most decisive of the war in Europe. They expected him to cite Stalingrad, instead he said, "The Battle of Britain."
Had the Germans won the Battle of Britain, England could not have won the Battle of the North Atlantic and may well have been forced to accept peace terms similar to France. According to former War Minister Hore-Belisha, "the Tory party in the House were not very interested in the war, were afraid for their possessions and of the rise of Labour . . . . . " The Russians may well have defeated Germany, but that would have left all of Europe under Soviet control, not merely the eastern half of Europe as eventually happened.
The English myth of the Battle of Britain is similar to stories about Sir Francis Drake and the Spanish Armada in 1588, when Drake preferred to finish a game of bowls before sailing out to rout the Spanish. In 1940, the myth created by Churchill is that "Never before has so much been owed by so many to so few." Like Dunkirk, the image was one of luck, pluck and mucking through the confusion, ineptness and amateurism. Bungay shows the triumph of British planning and readiness.
The German image, reinforced by quick and easy defeats of Poland and France, was that of an impregnable military machine guided by highly experienced professionals using superior technology with the rigorous discipline of well trained and effective troops. In contrast, the British were thought to be slightly dowdy country squires lucky enough to deny victory to the superb German military. Much of this legacy is based on the image of the Munich Agreement of 1938, which has ever since been used to describe English politicians as too weak to fight and too scared to rearm.
Reality is quite different. Bungay explains the British victory was based on a superb plan of operations and aircraft development that began in earnest in 1936 and was rigorously carried out in 1940. The basic idea was developed in 1922. Instead of being unprepared and underarmed, Britain was perhaps the world's best prepared and best armed nation in terms of air defense in the 1940s. The result was a decisive British victory which left the Luftwaffe crippled.
To summarize, the British fought the Battle of Britain with a Teutonic thoroughness for organization, planning, discipline and effort; they left little to chance, planned for the worst cases and didn't rely on luck. In short, the British behaved like Germans at their best, though these qualities were tempered and restrained by the civility of traditional English life. The Germans fought with a British thoroughness for bickering, personal petty disputes and trusting in an ability to muddle through; it is hardly an accident that two of the top German commanders committed suicide as a result of the internal wrangling and bitterness within the Luftwaffe high command.
In 1940, the British knew they needed a united effort if they were to win; the Germans didn't adopt a similar attitude until mid-1945, when they realized they would need a united effort if their country was to survive in the post-war period. The British, in 1945, having won through a magnificent team effort, changed governments and embarked on an "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy backed up by union strikes designed to win the maximum benefit for their members even at the price of national economic survival.
Maybe the British should learn to boast . . . . .
However, the irony today is that the epitome of English luxury, the Rolls Royce automobile -- once a product of the same company that in 1940 built engines for Spitfires -- is now powered by engines made by the same company that built engines for the Me-109s that failed so ingloriously in 1940.
But, is that something to boast about?
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:25 am
by rtrapasso
Telegraph does come to mind, but heck, didn't the Romans have a fairly extensive system of signal towers set up to convey messages rapidly across the Empire in some places?
True, and i was going to bring it up, but decided you might want the communication to be instantaneous (i.e. - it would be at the other end of the line of communications as fast as it could be put into the transmitting format, day or night, in essentially any weather).
A Radar History of World War 2 has some interesting comments on the British radar: it was known (at the time) as (something like) the "steam driven radar" in that it was extremely primitive in comparison with the other radar systems available, HOWEVER: it was linked in a systematic fashion which made it the most effective system in the world at the time (bar none)... this backs up the points of the original author, but it is hardly an original point of view by History Channel or Stephen Bungay.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:43 am
by Anthropoid
Well if nothing else, and I realize this makes me ignorant of the historical details to admit that I was surprised here . . . but hey, you learn something everyday: there seems to be no lack of consensus in one of the key themes of this episode that I found intriguing and surprising.
It was not simply a bad ass airplane and brave pilots that determined that battle.
The Spitfire and the British pilots certainly contributed, but issues of German supply (short-legged fighters), German bombers vulnerability, and an integrated information and command and control system are absolutely essential to a full explanation of why the battle was a British victory. I like hearing conclusions like that, i.e., that it is not single pieces of technology, nor great bravery on the part of a small or even a large group of people, but good STRATEGY that wins battles. Kinda makes playing these games seem like not such a waste of time after all.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:34 am
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
the Vic was a bad formation, the 2 wingmen spent too much time trying to stay in place, the RAF also set up a weaver, some one who flew back and forth over a squadron in flight, the weavers got shot down alot, with out anybody ever knowing it, think it took until 1942 for this idea to finally be dropped
The Japanese were still flying it in 1942....
The
Shotai was not the same thing as a Vic.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:48 am
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
What do you guys think? Recommended books?
Of the 5 or so books i've read, i'd most recommend:
"Eagle Day" by Richard Collier
"The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality" by Richard Overy
"Duel of Eagles: The Struggle for the Skies from the First World War to the Battle of Britain" by Peter Townsend
For a bigger focus on the pilots and how they factored and developed in the prewar situation with their organization, training, elan etc.....:
"Fighter Boys: The Battle of Britain, 1940" by Patrick Bishop
On the documentary:
The most important factor was Fighter Command's defensive network and organization. This, along with the operational tactics used allowed the British, fighting defensively, to maintain competetiveness and bloody the bomber force. This ultimately negated any minor preformance differences between the principle fighters as well as the German pilot experience edge + superiority of their basic fighter tactics (more flexible Schwarm vs. the rigid formation and outdated group attack tactics of the British) The British also refused to play the german's game in similar vein to that facing the Japanese over Guadalcanal....going after the bombers primarily vs. meeting the sweeping and/or escorting fighters to be convieniently shot out of the sky.
Exaserbating factors for the Germans were the vulnerability of their bombers due to weak defensive armament, low endurance of the 109....the inability of the Me-110 to fullfill it's expected role as an adequate long range escort, and perhaps most importantly of all....the extremely poor German INTEL which failed to pinpoint the key sector stations, the importance of the radar and comm net and the state of British fighter production.
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:28 pm
by Skyland
The battle of Britain was won because Britain is an island [:)]
Otherwise, Britain will have follow the fate of Poland, Holland and so on...
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:13 am
by Hard Sarge
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
the Vic was a bad formation, the 2 wingmen spent too much time trying to stay in place, the RAF also set up a weaver, some one who flew back and forth over a squadron in flight, the weavers got shot down alot, with out anybody ever knowing it, think it took until 1942 for this idea to finally be dropped
The Japanese were still flying it in 1942....
sure, but that don't mean it was good or not, it was there style, in there Vic, the leader was all, the two wingmen only job was to protect the leader, in the RAF system, they needed to attack and have all attack, plus I am sure the the vic they flew was not the same as the RAF verison of it
also, you can not really compare the ETO and the PTO for tactics, the JP pilots tended to go against every rule in the book, that the Germen, English, US and Russian pilots learned, they flew low, they flew slow, they tried to let the other guy attack them (which were all strengths of there planes) once the Allies learned not to fight on there terms, but on there own, things started going downhill
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:16 am
by Hard Sarge
ORIGINAL: pasternakski
ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Not sure the best forum to put this on on Matrix . . . I know there is some Battle of Britain type game in development,
Why put it here? This forum is clearly titled "War in the Pacific," which is a game. You obviously don't want to talk about a game, as you immediately start wandering off in some ostensibly history-related direction.
So take it to the "General Discussion" forum.
Oh. If you're looking for a forum about a Battle of Britain game in development, try going to the "Games in Development" category and check out the one called "Battle of Britain."
Funny, I thought he put it here, because he thought there were some smart people here would be able to talk about the subject and maybe he could learn some new veiws about it, I guess in some cases, he was wrong, oh well
RE: "First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:00 am
by Hard Sarge
towards the end of the war, the LW went back to the 3 plane formation with the 262's, it was too HARD to fly the finger four with them, and they were not as worried about spotting the enemy that the four allowed
(I know the name, it just don't want to pop into my head !!!) (Kette that is it)
the English were able to keep up there production and keep there fighter numbers good, but, the man in charge of production, in a odd sense, he is seen as saving Fighter Command, and also as almost ruining it, the changes he made, allowed them to rush fighters though production, but ruined production for the long haul, and he was kicked out and replaced and the production system was redone
along those lines, enough pressure could of broken the readyness numbers the English had, most of the English Fighter Factories were close to the coast
it was the pilots that were the weak link, there are 2936 pilots listed on the monument of the Battle of Britain
if it had been a wholy English battle, they would of lost it,
there were
149 Poles
110 NewZealanders
93 Canadians
90 Czech
29 Belgians
25 Aussies
19 South Africans
14 French
13 Yanks
10 Irish
and even 1 from Jamaica and Palestine
(my numbers for Rhodesis are screwed up)
some of those would be seen as CW, or flying for another country (Yanks flew as Canadians, info on French and Belgians were kept quiet)
one area that was odd, the High Command wanted to rest and rotate there Squadrons, pilots needed rest, but after a bit, it was noticed, it was better to keep a "old" squadron in line, even if shot up, then to bring a rested one in and replace it
most rested squadrons got shot apart with in a few days, while the old hands, just kept on going, soon squadrons were relabelled, A/B and C
so you started to pull pilots out of squadrons and send them into new ones as replacements, FAA, CC and BC were all stripped of pilots who it was thought could fly fighters
the pilots were the key