"First Internet" the "key" to Winning the Battle of Britain

[Anthropoid]

Not sure the best forum to put this on on Matrix . . . I know there is some Battle of Britain type game in development, but not sure where it is. Ah well, most regulars seem to browse WiTP, and it gets the most traffic so maybe best place to put it?

Watched an instant Netflix episode last night "History Channel Battlefield Detectives: Battle of Britain" last night, and I was just a little bit surprised at a couple points it made. They interviewed two or three Ph.D. miitary historian type guys who seem to focus on research on this battle, so maybe its not so crazy.

Main theme: longstanding "mythos" that the battle was won because of: (a) the incredible Spitfire airplane and (b) brave plucky Brit pilots, was not exactly true. Both Spitfire and the pilots were definite part of why the Germans lost, but just a part of a much larger issue: an integrated air defense system, which one scholar at one point is quoted to say "the first internet." This being the civilian observers, the radar, the sector air commands, and observer collation systems, all networked within the larger Fighter Command system.

First, they claimed Spitfire was not so great after all. They referred to computer sims testing Me109 and Spitfire that concluded Me109 was better in diving and climbing, not to mention the (undisputed) superiority in speed and firepower. Spit was better at turning only.

Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . . [ADDIT: thanks to Gladiatt, "Schwarm" or "Four Fingers"]

Third, the Me109 burnt up too much fuel, meaning that by the time pilots were over England, they were nervous about their fuel gauge and getting distracted from their best effort in air combat by their fear of running out of fuel and having to ditch in the channel or on the beach in France.

What do you guys think? Recommended books?

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . .

The "schwarm" ?? or "four fingers" ?

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . .

The "schwarm" ?? or "four fingers" ?

Yeah! That sounds right!

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . .

The "schwarm" ?? or "four fingers" ?

Yeah! That sounds right!

For the rest, i think other threadster could find valuable info, but i think i remenber that the germans fighter had something like 10 to 20 mn of fuel above england: something really short, even shorter if getting involved in a dogfight. By the way, the allies were in the same state of mind when they biggin to raid germany in 1942, with short legged planes....

[Mynok]

I still say the basic, core reason that Britain won is because Goering and Hitler made the idiotic decision to stop bombing airfields and air defense installations and start bombing cities.

[joey]

The game you might be talking about Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich. It cover the Battle of Britain and the subsequent bombing of Germany.

[RHoenig]

I thought this was common knowlege (excelent organization of fighter command, short legged Bf 109s, superior german fighter formation, roughly equality of Bf 109 and Spitfire).

And I absolutely agree with Mynok: Switching target from airfields to cities, just when fighter command was starting to hang in the ropes was incredibly stupid

[Hard Sarge]

depending on alt and all, the Spit was just a tad faster then the 109, but...

the 109 could outclimb the early Spits and Canes, and also outdive them (the RAF fighters had to roll onto there backs to dive, or they would stave there engines of air)

even with the radar, most Squadrons of RAF fighters, never were able to get above the Germen raids, the statement, beware the hun in the sun, was just as true in the 2nd WW as it was in the 1st (of course, with air combat, there is never such a thing as never, and most times the guy on top is soon the guy on the bottom and what not)

the Spit gets fame, but the Cane did most of  the dirty work

one that most people don't like to admit, the 109 shot down more fighters, then they lost, so the 109 did well, of course, the hassle with that line of thought is, there 110s, 111s, 88s and 17s along for the ride, and they didn't fare as well, not to mention the 87s

(one of the myths depending on the side, is the RAF shot the 87s out of the battle, but, most of them were with Luft3 in the south, and were to be transferred to Luft2, by the time they transferred, it was decided to hold them back for the ground support part of the battle, which never came)

one area, I have always liked, was, what if the planes were changed, give the LW the Spit and the Cane and give the RAF the 109 and the 110 ?, I really believe that now, the 109 would be the hero of the battle, it was much better for that role, and the Spit and Cane were just about as shortlegged as the 109 was, and turn rate means nothing when you are trying to defend bombers, plus the weapons for the 109 and 110 were better suited for the anti bomber mission, then the 8 303 MGs the RAF fighters carried

the 110 as a slashing attack fighter, would of worked well

but...

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 8 303 MGs may of been a decent weapon load, but most times, they were set to converge too far out, the Aces learned in a hurry that they needed to be set much closer, and at times, had to break orders from above to do so

[Radio]

How long did the offensive against cities last? I was under the impression that the second daylight raid on london incurred such heavy losses the Germans switched to night raids. Was their an earlier campaign against smaller towns? The speed with which the Luftwaffe switched to night raids would indicate they were pretty much on the limit as well as fighter command. The switch to bombing towns wasn't taken in a vacuum but in the context of mounting casualties. How much longer could the Luftwaffe have kept up daylight raids?

Most entirely defensive battles are fought by outlasting the attackers will to fight rather than killing the last attacker, so perhaps the battle was lost when the Luftwaffe stopped trying to tackle fighter command directly and switched to a more asymmetric form of warfare?

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: RHoenig

I thought this was common knowlege (excelent organization of fighter command, short legged Bf 109s, superior german fighter formation, roughly equality of Bf 109 and Spitfire).

And I absolutely agree with Mynok: Switching target from airfields to cities, just when fighter command was starting to hang in the ropes was incredibly stupid

Actually, _that_ part of it, the episode differs with a little bit. Now again, we're dealing with a pop-culture translation of primary scholarship it seems. But it _does_ appear that there is some solid scholarship going on in recent years on which these ideas (whether they are confirmations or revisions of prevailing wisdom) are based.

They have a section where one of the key scholar Bangay? Is talking with some other academic type, who did a complex Computer Simulation (imagine that! computer simulations of warfare for the sake of historical analysis!! Shocking I know!) that included most of the known variables (supposedly, though they didn't mention if it had a leader bug or not). According to this model, the Luftwaffe was "beating itself" so badly (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.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

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, but not sure where it is. Ah well, most regulars seem to browse WiTP, and it gets the most traffic so maybe best place to put it?

Watched an instant Netflix episode last night "History Channel Battlefield Detectives: Battle of Britain" last night, and I was just a little bit surprised at a couple points it made. They interviewed two or three Ph.D. miitary historian type guys who seem to focus on research on this battle, so maybe its not so crazy.

Main theme: longstanding "mythos" that the battle was won because of: (a) the incredible Spitfire airplane and (b) brave plucky Brit pilots, was not exactly true. Both Spitfire and the pilots were definite part of why the Germans lost, but just a part of a much larger issue: an integrated air defense system, which one scholar at one point is quoted to say "the first internet." This being the civilian observers, the radar, the sector air commands, and observer collation systems, all networked within the larger Fighter Command system.

First, they claimed Spitfire was not so great after all. They referred to computer sims testing Me109 and Spitfire that concluded Me109 was better in diving and climbing, not to mention the (undisputed) superiority in speed and firepower. Spit was better at turning only.

Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . . [ADDIT: thanks to Gladiatt, "Schwarm" or "Four Fingers"]

Third, the Me109 burnt up too much fuel, meaning that by the time pilots were over England, they were nervous about their fuel gauge and getting distracted from their best effort in air combat by their fear of running out of fuel and having to ditch in the channel or on the beach in France.

What do you guys think? Recommended books?

I wholeheartedly reccomend the following book:

Fighter
by Len Deighton


Amazon link -> Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain (Hardcover)




Leo "Apollo11"

[Anthropoid]

To those who feel Fighter is simply 'military history', it must be stressed that the Summer of 1940 was a magnificent expression of human endeavour. Pilot and crew bravery, tenacity in striving for goals on both sides is presented with Deighton's fine prose. Deighton shows that today's world would be drastically different had the Luftwaffe succeeded in its attempt to clear the way for an invasion. This book is a choice selection for an understanding of what the Battle of Britain was all about.

Sounds good. I think my wife might even like that one! Thanks Apollo11!

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

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, but not sure where it is. Ah well, most regulars seem to browse WiTP, and it gets the most traffic so maybe best place to put it?

Watched an instant Netflix episode last night "History Channel Battlefield Detectives: Battle of Britain" last night, and I was just a little bit surprised at a couple points it made. They interviewed two or three Ph.D. miitary historian type guys who seem to focus on research on this battle, so maybe its not so crazy.

Main theme: longstanding "mythos" that the battle was won because of: (a) the incredible Spitfire airplane and (b) brave plucky Brit pilots, was not exactly true. Both Spitfire and the pilots were definite part of why the Germans lost, but just a part of a much larger issue: an integrated air defense system, which one scholar at one point is quoted to say "the first internet." This being the civilian observers, the radar, the sector air commands, and observer collation systems, all networked within the larger Fighter Command system.

First, they claimed Spitfire was not so great after all. They referred to computer sims testing Me109 and Spitfire that concluded Me109 was better in diving and climbing, not to mention the (undisputed) superiority in speed and firepower. Spit was better at turning only.

Second, they argued that the Vick tactical formation used by the Brits was actually deficient to the one used by the Germans, forget the name of that one. . . [ADDIT: thanks to Gladiatt, "Schwarm" or "Four Fingers"]

Third, the Me109 burnt up too much fuel, meaning that by the time pilots were over England, they were nervous about their fuel gauge and getting distracted from their best effort in air combat by their fear of running out of fuel and having to ditch in the channel or on the beach in France.

What do you guys think? Recommended books?

I wholeheartedly reccomend the following book:

Fighter
by Len Deighton


Amazon link -> Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain (Hardcover)




Leo "Apollo11"

ADDIT: at the risk of getting this "off rails" [but I just cannot resist [:D] ] re: some of the recent threads about whether D-Day was necessary, whether the Soviets won it by themselves, blah, blah, blah . . .

They interviewed a guy who had been 19 year old Brit pilot in the battle in the episode I watched. He referred to a quote by a German General being questioned during the Nuremberg trials. The General was asked "When do you think Germany started to lose the war, was it Stalingrad, was it summer 1944, when?" to which the General responded "It was the summer of 1940, and the loss of the Battle of Britain."

[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....

[DivePac88]

Yes I think some fighter units used 'Vee' or 'echelon' three fighter formations till the end of the war.

[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."

[m10bob]

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."

The truth will set you free............................[:D]

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

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."

The truth will set you free............................[:D]

I think he is right m10bob. I come to this forum and see threads taken away from the interesting question by silly things from strange and self important people. They make these forum an odd place to visit. I wish the forum moderators will stop this troll actions.

MO

[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'.

[skrewball]

Why not put it here?

This is the most active and informed forum on Matrix. 9/10 of the other forums hardly have any posts. Frankly I feel any WWII topic should be welcomed here.

[RHoenig]

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'.

To beat the same horse [:)]

AFAIK, it wasn´t number of planes, the RAF could put in the air (productions seems to have kept up with losses more or less), but pilots.
And not simply number of pilots, as many of those shot down over England, obviously made it to the ground safely. It was more a burnout thing.
I imagine, being on readiness 12+ hours a day and being called in the air quite often will have an impact on your combat readiness after a few weeks.

So a simple statistical projection of losses against each other won´t cut it, IMO

I have to admit, I heaven´t read a book especially dedicated to the BOB, just a bunch of WW2 literature,but that´s my take on it