I have indeed, in fact my Bungay's copy is signed as well, it was a present from a friend who works at a bookshop where Bungay made a presentation, otherwise I don't think I would have ever read it. It's enjoyably well written, but it lacks on some points (I have jumped on a couple of chapter I have to admit), and even if you might think that his conclusions are similar to mine, this doesn't make his book a better source for a reliable reference.

Holland's book I bought personally the first week it came out, and albeit being a much harder one to read, I find it more complete and complying to the academic standards of a reliable history books. His conclusions are his own, not mine or someone elses.

You can appreciate that the Wikipedia references that I posted are ALL sourced from, and the DVD I mentioned was just an example that you're taking out of context.

I also mentioned Winston Churchill and Harris, but that must have gone past..

don't remember seeing much posted by you in terms of sources.. oh yes, cos you shared your own opinions, like the rest of us.

This whole thread is getting an immature twist driven by some obtuse nationalistic pride, which has NOTHING to do with the original thread.

No, I'm here to express my opinion, an opinion that is different and based on another approach, but which apparently doesn't deserve any respect cos it questions the concept of "winning the battle of britain"..
a bit fascist, but hey, as you say history repeats itself..

My contribution to this thread at this stage is only in response of who has been accusing me of being anti-British, which is completely uncalled for and has no factual reason.

why, as opposed to "I have my own ideas, they've been told me by my Government through his propaganda"?

Is it much of a shock to you guys that not everyone thinks the same way as you do?

Stearn....have you read 'fighter boys' by Patric Bishop?, I just got it and haven't read it yet, what is your oppinion on this book?

I'm a victim of the same compulsory "buy a book and read it later" syndrome, got so many I have haven't read yet! :(

I have the book in paperback, but never got around to read it, why?

No particular reason really, I don't have a great library, most of my books are reference material and not historical analysis, the few I do have I haven't read, I am not a great one for reading that type of stuff....I even have a signed copy of 'tumult in the clouds' that I never finished (Reason I have a signed copy is that James Goodson was a patient of my farther)

Despite our differences, you may still give me an isight to what it may be all about...

Far, far from it. Not even remotely close and precisely my point.

The references to Churchill, Montgomery, Harris et al were simple provocations to which i did respond in one or two sentences.

The historical references I quoted were from your own recommended source.

sorry mate, I haven't managed to read it :(

I can recommend you First Light by Geoffrey Wellum though, as an aviator yourself you might find his description of his first solo with a Tiggie the best written rendition of the experience :-)

Uh and since he was mentioned before, Stephilner's book Spitfire On My Tail is quite a read, if anything a different one, that shows what it was like on the other side.

If you find it hard to read extremely academic books though, I would still recommend to read Bungay's one, if anything it flows better than Holland's.

the bits you quoted were Holland's opinions.

What you don't seem to get is that I'm making a distinction between the factual gathering of data vs the conclusions that an author reaches.

I can read, agree or dissent with someone's conclusions, but what really matters is that the data gathered to reach this conclusion are more complete and accurate. In this aspect I think Holland wins.

I'm debating the academic value of a book here, not the author's conclusion.

uh and another thing, I read pilot's bios more for the descriptions of events and emotions than for the conclusions that they might reach, because even if they are cool, pilots are still human beings, not the custodians of the ultimate truth, although some get damn close to it.

When reading a "history book" it's important to understand beforehand the context in which it was written, if it's a witting or unwitting testimony, if it was written during or after the war etc..

Sorry Bongo, not directed at me, but I have.

Fighter Boys - Patrick Bishop - Published by Harper- Collins:

Page 404 para3;
''Fighter Command dealt Hitler's forces the first defeat they had suffered since the war began. The battle of attrition that the Luftwaffe was forced to fight had a profound effect on it's future efficiency. A Luftwaffe General, Werner Kreipe, later judged that the decision to try to destroy the RAF had marked a turning point in the history of the second world war. The German airforce was bled almost to death and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the War.''

It's a very very good book.

At least try to make that sentence not sound derrogatory, I'm not sure being accused of being a stranger to inteligence is particularily flattering ;)

No probs, thanks mate, I was curious to know if the little review on the back cover by a 'james holland' New statesman was the very same as previously mentioned?

lol sorry man, didn't mean it to sound derogatory! :)

I find it hard sometimes, there needs to be a serious element of interest for me to stick to academic books. It's like trying to read a phonebook for its plot lol

Sorry Bongo, I've had the hardback copy since it was first published in 2003.

I'd imagine it would be the same James Holland though.

Out of interest, what does he say, if you have it to hand?

Thanks.

" No one reading this book can possibly doubt the heroism of those involved ... there can't be a finer history"

I'm not Stearn, but I've read Fighter Boys and consider it one of the best books about WW2 I've ever read. And my WW2 literature collection has become quite extensive over the last 20 years.

Thanks, I appreciate all inputs, it was a birthday gift from a friend who gave much the same description as you.

;)

you just show yourself to be yet another spineless keyboard hero.

@Stern. *sigh* You wouldn't let it lie would you. I tried my best.

:grin: Comedy. Gold. Mine irony cup o'er floweth and thanks for the laugh pal. :grin: Do have a nice day though and no hard feelings Rambo (don't shoot! :grin:).

Home telephone number: 0191 2894170 (ask for Mark 7pm onwards, but we both know you won't, eh gob shyte ). That's out there for everyone to see. Nothing and nobody 'frightens' me; there might be a reason for that (loved your 'menacing' PM btw...terrifying stuff lol) and because I am so 'spineless'. ;) I'll gladly meet you if you're ever in my neck of the woods and you can tell me all about it. In an atmosphere of peace, cordiality and good will, of course. ;)

You're so effin full of *bleep* its untrue, and no this invitation is not because I 'fancy' you (I'm not like that lol) so don't get too excited. :grin:

I'm serious. Do it soft lad or otherwise kindly STFU. Yes, I've reverted to 'British' type. I never said I was 'civilised' anyway lol and on that score you are probably right. ;)

Fecking Clown. :grin: Mods you can give me a holiday now if you want I'm not arsed, it had to be said and he started it with yet another insult anyway. Still won't grass him for his threatening PM though, had a good laugh, and nobody likes a grass do they Stern. :grin:

Ciao.

..erm, it really sounds like you need a holiday pal :confused:

43 pages, any of them worth reading?

I see stern is doing his passive aggressive stuff again.

Re the initial statement - yes, if defeat equals failure to meet objectives. Bungay's "most dangerous enemy" is a great read, and a very good handling of the topic that strips away other british account's bias. As to it's academic value, well considering the number of flight sim history buffs who recommend it... Got to have some value. Only an idiot would dismiss it without reading it.

Wellum and Steinhilper's books are superb first hand accounts, and give a texture to one's understanding, but should not be referred to as an historical analysis.

Stern, Orville,etc

You guys want to have verbal fight. Not here!

Take your comments to PM, or better still use the ignore list.

Otherwise, you will be a part of history on this forums.

Mods have let you run, but it's time you took the flames elsewhere.

Your posts have been reported several times in this thread.

Rgr and fair enough. Ignore list it is......

This is from quite a way back now and a lot has been said in between.

I'm aware of the merits of taking an approach to judging historical events that uses recent research, previously unavailable documents from both sides, etc to attempt to reach something approaching neutral, objective truth (though many people doubt whether such a position can ever be truly reached)

From a present day perspective with access to both sides records we can get a more nuanced, detailed, objective picture of the events of 1940. One of the points I tried to make in my previous post was that this can have a downside too - there can be a tendency to use our knowledge of later events in the 41-45 period to construct conclusions that were in no way apparent back in 1940. Stern is doing this when he downplays the significance of the BOB for the ultimate outcome of the war. Such conclusions may or may not be correct - but they were in no way apparent back in Summer 1940.

In my last post I was trying to say that to understand the significance of the BOB in the British psyche you really need to understand what the picture looked like from these islands in 1940. It was viewed as a crucial fight for survival. Too much of Sterns and others comments read like 'after the event' rationalisations - and there is a certain 'meanness' in some of the conclusions that strike me at least as being wilfully unbalanced.

It is understandable that other nationalities may be somewhat bemused by the 'our finest hour' rhetoric. I think the only answer is to make more of an effort to recognise each other's different national perspectives. There may not be any ultimate settled truth to be agreed here.

good post.

it does seem that the BoB was seen at the time as a barring of the door, a halting of the steamroller that had conquered much of europe in such a short period of time. we were fearfully aware of how ill-equipped our army was after it's narrow escape, even going to the extent of replacing armoured vehicles with flatbed truck and concrete. if seelowe had achieved it's stated aims (however implausible this appears to us after the fact, relying on the destruction of fighter cover over the channel, further degradation of the royal navy, good weather etc etc) then britain would have either been invaded or sued for peace (which elements of the commons were driving for during the battle). this could also have come to pass during the battle of the atlantic, which in fact was a more grievous threat to the nation than seelowe ever hoped to be. no britain - no aircraft carrier off the coast of europe for later use in the war. considering how instrumental russia was in actually defeating germany it may not have affected the ultimate outcome, but having to guard two fronts and divide what was essentially a tactical force (luftwaffe) cannot have helped barbarossa or future endeavours.

Sternjaeger II, if you don't consider the BoB warrants a 'Battle' nomenclature, then what other 'Battles' would you say were not, or were, 'Battles'?

EEUU said to Hitler, "hey, stop bombing England for now, his economy is now like we want it to be, and go to Russia, the communist are plague in everywhere"

nana

Luftwaffe don't have the correct plane: They must nedd:; The Focke Wulf 190 and the Bf-109F, and big numbers of FW200 Condors.
if germany had this in 1940, they maybe are at the level of an invation.
Bf109E-4 was not the correct plane. first of all, low autonomy and incorrect armament. That problem of the MMGG in the engine must be fixed before the campaign. but... the corruption affect all goberments.

And i Vote for the He100, best than the BF109E:
670kmh 1.100km autonomy and engine cannon.

Either my last post was amazingly good or everyone has been banned??! Have the mods been having a clear-out?

Your last post was amazingly good, but after the last few days it's possible some people needed a breather.;)

by definition a battle is a conflict that happens between two parts in a precise lapse of time. The end can be a victory of one side or a draw, but there needs to be an end.

In the way things evolved, the battle against Britain wasn't over until VE day, the plan of undermining morale and assessing damage to England was still carried out with V1s and V2s. The fact that air operations got less intense and eventually the force was moved somewhere else meant that there was a change of tactics, not a crippling blow to the Luftwaffe which stopped them from operating as an Air Force. The aerial clashes over the Channel were part of a bigger plot, not a battle per se.

I understand the need for a sense of "battle" and "united we stand", but there's no logic nor nobility in a modern war like WW2, that's why I think the whole concept of the Battle of Britain is a bit bogus, and the clashes over the channel resulted into a draw.

Hello again.......so because there was no 'battle' and there was 'no end' therefore no 'victory' and no 'defeat' how exactly could there even be a 'draw', one could consider the 'end' was the point German air operations ceased, no need for anhilation (thats an end of war scenario)

I think what we have achieved with this thread is merely pointing out theres a very fine line between definitions over this event, and it seems hardly worth the effort trying to prove the alternate history, it's still going to be one of the largest air 'battles' of the second world war which gives it enough significance, I know it's upsetting for many to consider the British came of victorious, but what can we do.

aawww come on mate, it's not a matter of who's victorious, for an historian it's firstly a matter of mechanics, not feelings.

If we look at the aerial battle numbers, both had similar losses, and the end of the big daily air operations was anyway asynchronous with the Blitz itself.

There's too much of a blurred line there, there's no breaking of frontlines, loss or gain or territory, disbandment of an army or any other sign that would identify it as a battle. It was an intensification of aerial defence over a few months, depicted by propaganda (and rightly so for the sake of morale) as a "battle", which had an old fashioned yet appealing sound to it, especially cos the perception was one of victory. But it didn't last long unfortunately, cos the bombing of civilian targets continued :(

So if it wasn't a battle by your definition it was a campaign

definition: A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.

Which ended in a failure on the Axis side and a victory on the side of the British.

The objective of the Axis was to get the British to sue for peace or destroy their capability to resist an invasion (depending upon who you listen to) , an objective that they failed to accomplish.

The objective that the British had was to repel the Axis attacks and gain time to rebuild their offensive capabilities, which they succeeded in doing. Obviously a victory.

Of cource battle would be equally vaild if you used the definition "A protracted controversy or struggle" and it does roll off the tongue better than the "Britain campaign"

Cheers!

Well to be honest I'm sold on all the 'historian perspective' stuff, I have to agree, but humans were involved so feelings are a 'factor', morale is a factor in conflict, it's another weapon in the armoury.
so German Morale 'had' to be affected by the first bit of resistance they got, the losses they suffered, it must have been a contributing factor to the decision to pack up the Bratwurst rations and send them east.

for 3 months the British fought almost expecting to lose, we didn't give up.

What I'm asking you Stern is maybe to get back in touch with your 'human' side instead of the robotic historian, and see how it feels.....

A megalomaniac fascist dictator attempts to conquer the entirety of Europe, the logical and noble response is to oppose him. The reason WWII is remembered so vividly through many shades of tinted glasses is that for the allies at least, it was and still is seen as 'a just war' distasteful as the phrase may be, it was also necessary. It is also the only conflict of modern times that can be seen this way, WWI certainly cannot, and the post WWII conflicts are all terribly muddied in terms of right and wrong.

The Battle of Britain ended on september 17th 1940 when the Nazi leadership realised the Luftwaffe had been completely unsuccessful in achieving their objectives and indefinitely postponed (cancelled) operation sea lion. At this point the Luftwaffe were at roughly 50% numbers of men and machines they had been at the start of the summer, whereas the RAF had increased in number by roughly 40%. The losses were comparable but were higher for the Luftwaffe as you'd expect for the attacking force, but considering their greater numbers and superior machines (at the start of the year) not to mention battle experienced pilots and crews is a significant failure. By denying air superiority by means of staying alive and attriting the Luftwaffe until their previously greater force was now a similar size, the RAF set in stone that no land invasion of Britain could ever be mounted, as the RN would send whatever tried to cross to the bottom of the channel.

The plans then changed to night bombing of civilian centers (which no air force in the world at that time could possibly completely prevent with the limits of technology) which is not a continuation of the previous battle IMO but a new battle, with different objectives (to try and turn British public opinion against its leaders) which were also never achieved, in fact the Blitz (see this battle had a name as well) doubly failed as it had the opposite effect to that which was intended.

Eh up, we have agreed to disagree but given the definition above.

Couple of things.:)

The bombing of civilians in the Blitz was to achieve a completely different stated objective from the objective at the start of the Battle of Britain.

And given your definition above where do say Trafalgar and Midway fit?

there's no breaking of frontlines: Tick for both
loss or gain or territory: Tick for both
disbandment of an army: Tick for both
Or any other sign that would identify it as a battle.... Well other than one side very clearly achieved it's objectives and one side didn't

Your 'logic' doesn't work Stern, sorry.

Regards Mike

yep, a campaign that was over when Germany surrendered unconditionally. But saying that the interruption of the aerial clashes over the Channel in 1940 was "the victory of a battle" is propaganda.

Trust me, sentiment is taken into account, but it can't determine historical facts :(

I believe in the importance of the celebrations for the Battle of Britain, if anything for the remembrance of "the few" and as a cause of aggregation and pride for a country, so I understand his moral and social value, but these aspects can't be of historical influence, it's a dangerous form that can take to a biased revisionism of historical events.

I'm not an expert on Trafalgar, so I can't give you an assessment for that one, but Midway was indeed a gain of territory (it wasn't land per se, it was ocean control), and indeed the losses sustained by the Japanese were a critical hit from which they never fully recovered (unlike Germany in 1940).

By this logic surely that means there were no 'battles' at all during WWII

it seems to me the only ones to gain from any 'revisionism' are the losers......food for thought.

Disappointing though it is to have to advise people who like to cite their academic experience / credentials of this, please look up 'ad hominem', and then avoid it when discussing...erm...anything.

Your having a wriggle aren't you Stern :) you really are!

LOL

Regards Mike

guys, really, there's no point, just leave it.

You don't WANT to be objective, it's your issue, not mine.

I know I can discern from national sentiment and history, hindsight and the danger of it, you guys just don't seem to.

What surprises me is that instead of looking into a different approach to the issue and try to understand where it comes from, you diminish it as rubbish, thinking that your being right is in your numbers and being louder (or in several cases, offensive).

This kind of attitude is really dangerous for the sake of history, but then again it seems to be a recurrent issue in historical circles anyway.

I think our point is...what was wrong with the 'status quo', why does it 'need' revisiting, not being funny but you give the impression you are trying to 'change' history and therefore are guilty of all the 'revisionism' here.

With the greatest of respect Stern (and I think all of our exchanges have been respectful).

I don't think its because we won't see the light its more the fact that since defining your position on the BoB you haven't been able to sustain any form of coherent argument that supports it (and people have noticed :grin:).

I'm sure there will be future discussions where are in absolute agreement.

Regards Mike

Stern....the only thing that prevents you being classed as a Nationalist in this argument is the fact you are Italian, but you clearly have some romantic vision of the Germans, which is fair enough, take the Nazi out of them and they were an incredible force and worthy of all the envy.

I think this is good interesting article on BOB game hub:

Die Luftschlacht um England. Did Germany really lose the Battle of Britain?

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/aboutthebattle.htm

as I said, there's nothing wrong with the public perception of the status quo, I just find it strident in a historical concept so broad as WW2, especially for an event with such blurred edges and different perceptions from the contending sides.

you see? this is what I mean. It's an interesting and somehow intriguing point, and we all start from the assumption that nobody here is trying to deprive Britain of its well deserved merit for its accomplishments in WW2.

No it's not just the public perception, and the perception of the opposing side would be more digestable if it wasn't complete and utter 'denial'

I think that article is interesting but to claim the Royal navy was the key?

if Germany had achieved total air dominance the Navy would have been just as vulnerable, wasn't that something the War highlited, the days of naval power were fading fast because if air power? RN vs LW and German navy wouldnt have stood a chance surely.

man, I can only talk for myself here. First of all you're still looking at sides, I'm personally on neither side, I'm looking at it from bang in the middle. You, on the other hand, and for well understandable nationalistic standpoints, give the impression of still looking it from the British point of view, but there's more to keep into consideration than that.

I'll read the article in full and tell you what I think of it.

Ignore me....I read the wrong thing anyway, I read the web article and not the pdf it linked to....then my internet died before I could edit my response.....I wish the Germans were in charge here sometimes, everything would bloody work then!!!!

Just read it....in conclusion it really is saying the 'battle' was insignificant because the Germans werent really interested...so it just didn't matter, and anyhow the Luftwaffe was crap anyway, and when they got bored of it all they really did just pack up the sausages and leave.....seems it really is all about Nationalistic viewpoints and neither side wil rest until the other changes its mind........Stern is right......it's a draw eh ;)

A bit O/T but how much of the invasion fleet would the RN have to sink before the invasion would be called off? I am sure that the RN would sacrifice a lot of ships to achieve that. Their role is to protect Britain and that would be their task.

dictionary

battle: a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces

Well, the role is to protect Britain while having the minimum amount of losses, cos once your might is no more, you failed.

Exposing all of your Navy in such a narrow area would have been quite a huge risk, besides, considering that the waters would have been an obstacle anyway, the only viable solution would have been to invade the territory with paratroopers and establish bridgeheads.
Considering that the first heavy transport glider (Me321 Gigant) was done at a record speed and available in early 1941, if they carried on with the battle for air dominance they might have as well ditched the plan of an invasion via sea for an airborne one: with a coordinated operation they could have delivered thousands of soldiers and even light tanks and medium tanks (Panzer IV) in a single day.

But again, this is speculation.

To add a bit O/T thoughts, i believe that the german LW would have been able to gain enough local air superiority to sink any fleet in reach of the 109's during the first part of the BoB.

here's a working link to Lund's reference (the one that doesn't work in the original pdf)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/...man/index.html

I have often wondered about Milch's June 40 'Plan / Gamble'.
Massive local air superiority, glider / parachute operation to capture say Hawkinge and then throw the kitchen sink at keeping resupply / reinforcement open.

I think given the state of the British Army at that point it might just have worked.

Regards Mike

Just a short reply WRT naval forces:

1.) The forces near the invasion zone - which were light forces, destroyers and a handful of light cruisers - would be among the priority targets for the Luftwaffe if the necessary air superiority had been established. And that is before the "invasion fleet" raises anchors.
Besides there is more than one way to take warships out of the equation. Damage them, damage or destroy the infrastructure they rely on (piers, cranes, ammo and fuel depots) and they won't be more than a heap of metal. Had the Luftwaffe won air superiority the big harbors of Southern England would have seen very heavy attacks (i.e. Portsmouth or Southampton).

2.) The Royal Navy was stretched thin across the globe due to the necessities of the Empire, the italian navy in the Mediterranean Sea and the need to escort convois across the Atlantic. The Home Fleet was based at Scapa Flow and a number of cruiser and destroyer flotillas along the Eastern Coast. Getting them to the area of operations does take time, a group of heavy ships coming from Scapa will take up to a day to reach the combat zone. Which means there will be no heavy cruisers or battleships opposing the initial landings.

Additionally the Channel was a narrow theater, rather easily controlled with light forces, recon planes, submarines and - the real trump card the Kriegsmarine had - mines. Large ships are best suited for large sea areas. They need space to maneuver ... which was just not there in the Channel.

3.) Battleships and the likes are political weapons. Regardless of their firepower, their protection or their speed there was always a political element in their use. Wilhelm II left the High Seas Fleet in their harbors since he feared losses more. The Japanese left Musashi and Yamato at home until it was too late for them to make a useful contribution. I think the british government would think hard and long about employing its valuable battleships and battlecruisers in these narrow waters, where the risk of losing them is very high while the potential gains are at least questionable. These ships represent a nation's prestige in naval affairs, losing them for nothing would be a serious blow.

I'm not saying a potential invasion would have worked for sure. I am saying we're talking about very muddy waters here and it's simply impossible to tell what exactly could have happened and how that could have effected other decisions.

Not posting this to prove any kind of point, but found an interesting link here;

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/U...UK-RN-I-4.html

Couldn't find a similar link to a simple tally of Kriegsmarine strength.

Anyone post one please?

Cheers.

'By the 31st of August all ships of the Home Fleet, commanded by Admiral Sir Charles Forbes, had taken up or were proceeding to their war stations. The organisation and disposition of the fleet was as follows:

At Scapa Flow in the Orkneys:
2nd Battle Squadron Nelson, Rodney, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies.
Battle Cruiser Squadron Hood and Repulse.
Aircraft Carrier Ark Royal.
18th Cruiser Squadron Aurora, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Belfast.
12th Cruiser Squadron Effingham, Emerald, Cardiff, Dunedin.
7th Cruiser Squadron Diomede, Dragon, Calypso, Caledon.
6th and 8th Destroyer Flotillas Seventeen destroyers.
1st Minesweeping Flotilla Seven fleet minesweepers.
At Rosyth:
Aircraft Carrier Furious
At Dundee:
2nd Submarine Flotilla Depot ship Forth and ten boats.
At Blyth:
6th Submarine Flotilla Depot ship Titania and six boats.


In addition to the foregoing ships and units under Admiral Forbes' command the following forces were stationed in home waters:-- In the Humber:
2nd Cruiser Squadron Southampton and Glasgow.
7th Destroyer Flotilla Nine destroyers.
At Portland:
Battleships Resolution and Revenge.
Aircraft Carriers Courageous and Hermes.
Cruisers Ceres, Caradoc, Cairo (A.A. cruiser.)
18th Destroyer Flotilla Nine destroyers.'

I make that about 90 ships/boats in total.

"The number and strength of our surface units is so small compared to the British fleet that they can only show how to die in honor - even when operating with full effort."
-- Großadmiral Erich Raeder, September 3, 1939

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orde...ember-1939.htm

yep, considering the losses sustained during the Norway campaign as well, the Kriegsmarine was in no state to face the Royal Navy, save for the u-boote, which could have still used with success in such a peculiar bit of sea, and being very close to their bases, they would have operated quick and effectively.

Yeah, it was the u-boat strength I was mainly looking for.

I was also thinking how fantastic it would be if one day using some sort of online computer sim, maybe even CoD, the invasion could actually be attempted virtually, complete with Naval forces etc.:grin:

What a cracking fantasy!

The weakness of the Kriegsmarine is not really relevant in that equation. Every sane person would know that such an operation would have to substiture naval power with air power ... The Kriegsmarine had only three factors to contribute (besides providing the transport vessels): torpedos (from E-Boats and submarines), destroyers (plus a few cruisers) and most importantly mines.

EDIT: I think it's a gross misconception just to count the british capital ships and park them in the middle of the Channel. Such a concentration of force is unwieldy and would have serious trouble maneuvering. And maneuver they'd have to ... to evade the hail of bombs. Damage would most certainly accumulate over time and at some point they'd have to withdraw - even if they'd just run out of ammo (which would be a lot sooner for the important destroyers and light cruisers).

True enough but the Kreigsmarine were very concerned about the strength and ability of the RN(if I remember rightly). I would like to know what the RN planed to do in the event of an invasion fleet setting out and what losses they expected and were prepared to take. I think that the general opinion of the Navys at that time was it was hard to sink a ship using aircraft. Billy Mitchell proved otherwise but the USN wasnt impressed.

No surprise. Few Admirals would be happy to admit that their expensive toys were suddenly vulnerable to aircraft. ;)

Thanks, do you know the number of operational u-boats at this time also?

The only figure I can find is during the Norway campaign @ 30.

I bet that the Luftwaffe wouldn't put the radar sites low on their priories this time :)

And Erprobungsgruppe 210 would be a whole Luftflotte.;)

http://www.uboat.net/index.html

graph and other info on U-boat numbers

http://www.uboat.net/media/layout/im...t_strength.gif

World war two was a victory for the Marsians....:evil:

You make some good points, but I get a little annoyed when you constantly seem to imply that everyone else is unable to rise above their partial standpoint while your viewpoint is unimpeachably neutral and objective.

It is probably impossible for anyone to attain complete objectivity - too often the conclusions reached are dependent on starting assumptions, etc, and it's very difficult for many people to rise above the cultural and societal baggage they have inherited.

But, I would respect your opinion more if you could accept that your position is just as prone to assumptions and sometimes self-serving beliefs as many other people on this forum. You come across as somewhat elitest, especially when you ascribe those who genuinely disagree with your personal views as having been duped by propaganda.

The way to get us to change our minds is to supply overwhelming evidence. You haven't been able to do that (so far!). Your views appear just as partial and agenda-driven as any other poster in this thread.

Would be nice, but even then, the objectivity of the coders who created the sim would be called into question by the losing side.
Someone, somewhere, is always going to raise objections, no matter what. :)

In my considered and (in as far as is possible, notwithstanding the apparently unavoidable subconscious and insipid subliminal influence of 'rabid Patriotism' lol) entirely objective opinion, based on an assessment of the facts, the Kriegsmarine did not stand a snowballs chance in hell against the Royal Navy; echoing the sentiments of one Grossadmiral Donitz, with air superiorty or not.

Royal Navy:

5 capital ships
11 cruisers
53 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty

Kriegsmarine:

1 capital ship
1 cruiser
10 destroyers
20-30 U-boats *Ineffective and at extreme disadvantage in the shallows of the Channel. Many ships also with unrepaired extensive damage from the Norwegian campaign*

Not only vastly outnumbered, but outclassed too.

Add to the RN mix a countless legion of auxilary craft, , adapted trawlers and sloops, minesweepers and motor torpedo boats . The MTB 102 alone for example was capable of 48 knts fully laden, and could be equipped variously with machine guns, depth charges, and the Swiss Oerlikon 20mm AA cannon. Nasty little bumblebee with quite a sting, small and extremely maneouvrable,.....Have fun 'precision bombing' or strafing those. In a barge vs 102 battle, I really don't fancy the barges chances. :D

Interestingly, no mention has been made of the fact that the RN need not have fired a single shot in order to sink the rag tag German barge Armada (appallingly ill prepared and trained with no experience of amphibious assault). The mere proximity and wake of a destroyer, never mind a Capital Ship would be enough to capsize the craft. In fact, Mother Nature (with a strong channel current) could very easily do that too. Barges are designed for Rivers. I wouldn't like to be on that barge at night.

Dunkirk (and to an extent the Norwegian Campaign) shows demonstrable precedent that air superiority alone cannot be a guarantor of operational success. Despite the immense tonnage of bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk, against targets which were stationary for long periods of time, and at best extremely restricted in movement by the harbour.......a paltry 4 destroyers were sunk. This was a resounding Luftwaffe operational failure in terms of meeting an express military objective no matter which way you cut it; namely to prevent the evacuation of some 300,000 men, which they failed quite miserably to do. You can either hit a stationary or moving target or you can't.....an underwhelming performance to say the least, with substantial Lufwaffe casualties incurred too ( some 30 aircraft, with many more damaged). Ships are indeed vulnerable to aerial attack, but not entirely defenceless themselves.

Yes, it is true to say that unfavourable weather played a part, (particularly the 27th and 30th May) but if perfect conditions and visibility are a prerequisite for effective bombing then circa Sept 1940.....you are out of luck. No Meteorologist, but Blighty is not exactly renowned for its blue skies, and 50% of the time we are shrouded in quite dismal overcast. If the 3rd Reich were in possession of some occult voodoo type 'sun dance' it could have swung the balance, but....Nah. :D It does provide a creative spark for the miserablist majesty of great bands like The Smiths and Radiohead though, so it has its perks. :D

Much has been made of the 'mine screen' tactic and their 'interdictive' deployment strategy, with no mention of the fact that the Channel had already been heavily mined by the RN (it's called the 'English Channel' for a reason) and thus would require their laborious and time consuming removal; further shortening the very brief 'window of opportunity' that seelowe had.

The practice of 'Degaussing' ships hulls has received no consideration; the entire Dunkirk evac fleet including civilian ships underwent this process very swiftly, rendering them essentially impervious to magnetic mines. Not a single ship was lost to German mines. This could be done very swiftly, with a more thorough process resulting in a ship hulls demagnetisation for months at a time.

The Kriegsmarine, as Donitz's testimony itself agrees, were on a hiding to nothing....air superiority or not. Seelowe was a terribly ill conceived 'plan' (used in the loosest sense of the word), with more holes than a collander, and more flaws than a teenagers pimpled face. :D

Late in Blighty and I've had a few jars, but might come back to this one. I like a good debate, but for me personally (and I hope without prejudice lol ) this case is closed. The vast majority of historians agree that it would have resulted in catastrophic failure, and I entirely concur. You are of course welcome to draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion the end game is a logistical-supply nightmare for Germany (given the extremely unlikely hypothetical event of establishing an effective beach head) and the final result is comprehensive and emphatic defeat. Not to say there would not be RN casualties (there most certainly would), but the final outcome was quite inevitable.

Cheers.

An account of the 1974 Sandhurst wargame of Operation Sealion.

The whole concept of any battle being a draw is laughable.
By its very nature a battle is, in military terms, a conflict of opposing objectives. Therefore it has inherent success and failure criteria.

Midway is an excellent parallel to the Battle of Britain.
Japan used its attempted invasion of the island as a way of bringing the USN to battle and destroying it and therefore acheiving a strategic victory in both political and military terms.

Japan failed in this objective and therefore lost the battle.

Germany attempted the same in 1940 and lost the battle.

If one side was defeated, by definition the other side won.

Thanks for picking up on Midway Trashcanman. I asked Stern for his view on that battle and he decided American victory. I then heard a twanging sound that I believe was his logic snapping :grin:

Regards Mike

mmmh, I think it was more the sound of your point bouncing over my explanation :rolleyes: ;)

Midway was a turning point and a victory because of the changes and short term consequences that came right after the clash.

There were NO changes whatsoever to the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe, you just pushed them back as much as you could, and not fully anyway, since they dropped tons of bombs over Britain.

They didn't stop because your opposition crippled them, they stopped cos it was a half-hearted, badly conceived and worst executed plan, and suddenly Barbarossa was more important for obvious resources reasons (and it's not like they stopped bombing you straight away anyway). Either you fail to understand the German logic about it, or you're in denial.

First of all thank you for seeing that some of the points I make are good. Second thing, have you ever heard me mentioning the might and power of the Luftwaffe or RAF (or other similar barking) or a "we won" "we lost"?

I talk about the two enemies in third person, I don't have this "faction approach", which others do and betrays an innate (and understandable) bias, but of little or no help for the sake of a fair appraisal of historical events.

Denial :grin: Lets not bring Egypt and the North African theatre into this!

So there was no change whatsoever in the tactical situation or strength of the Luftwaffe between july 1940 and October 1940! :rolleyes:
My gosh Stern, there really is no point discussing with you is there on this subject? Everything you accuse the people you disagree with of you are exhibiting to a greater degree.

Regards Mike

Appart from the complete change of tactics to the 'blitz' bombings, and the losses suffered in the BOB

But they did stop after 3 months of half hearted trying.

does German logic override any other? sounds one sided to me, in denial of what exactly?

what do you think, that when one starts a war with a certain number of aircraft they think you won't have any losses?! Battle losses were taken into account even by their incompetent leaders, they probably didn't think they would have lost as many, but and the production numbers show that the Luftwaffe soon replenished the losses with the production of new planes.

Besides the evolution of aircraft was so fast that Emils would have been obsolescent by 1941, it was a costly, disposable force.

uhmm if you say so.. it doesn't make it right..
I don't accuse nobody, who's "the people"? I'm making a point, either you agree or disagree..

see my answer above: losses are always taken into account. The change of tactics doesn't mean they lost, they kept on dropping bombs or V1/2s over the UK.

yes, it wasn't as fast and easy as they thought. They still kept on dropping bombs with a more efficient and less costly manner, and one harder to stop.

no, but it's a different one. You keep on applying the same logic to different countries, it doesn't quite work like that, but then again, it's a typical empire mentality, nothing to be blamed for of course!

Yeah...because when they tried a face to face fight they got a bloody nose, so they resorted to poking us with a long stick.

Oh losses are taken into account.....so they predicted the losses they'd suffer and were just fine with it....like an act of charity to make the Brits feel a little better about themselves?

This just doesn't make sense....applying what logic to what countries?

Ah the empire mentality.......another little jab at the Brits....so the Germans never had designs on an 'empire' ?......come to think of it while the British were empire building I seem to recall they weren't alone in that race at all.

you see? That's what I mean, how can you call that an unbiased assessment? :confused: But using your terms: I think the fight gave a bloody nose to both of them..

yes, every armed forces does it, it's called damage assessment. No charities involved...

your empire logic to other countries.

man, you're really touchy are you? Why is that supposed to be a little jab or derogatory?! :confused:
The Germans were the main European empire, but nowadays they don't think in those terms anymore. Many in the UK still do it, probably thinking that the status of "Kingdom" means they still are an empire. Again, there's nothing wrong with the empire mentality, it's just a bit anachronistic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...curity-history

....as if the author read this thread.

The Brits got their nose bloodied in France, I just assumed that was the 'given', the BOB was where the Grmans got a taste and it didn't feel so good, they tried for 3 months with one tactic which failed and switched to another......that failed, no bias....that is what happened, any colurfull Nationalistic tones used in the description don't change those facts.

Quite....and when the predictions are proving a bit 'off' it's time to change plans

Still not making sense, please elaborate with a clear example of this.

Touchy?.....maybe, when you hear this kind of crap over and over it wears the patience somewhat, many in the UK is not everyone in the UK, The United Kingdom existed before the empire, the empire doesn't exist any more.

Bewolf, you wanna become my spokesman? ;)

depends on the pay, hehe.

it's the kind of drivel you expect from such a left wing newspaper, so the article fits into your 'generalisation' of the British, hi5's all around chaps.

You just don't get what I mean, I don't know how to explain it anymore, Bewolf, care to help me on this one please?

a "change of plans" doesn't mean "losing a battle".

what is it that is not quite clear, the concept of empire mentality?

yes, but it's this dwelling over and over on the glories of the past that is a bit silly, and, as pointed by Bewolf's article, shows the insecurity of this society.

Besides, don't you think for a minute that the continuous celebration of the "victory" on the Battle of Britain could be somehow perceived as passive-aggressive by the Germans of today? And I'm not talking about the remembering of the pilots or victims, I'm talking about all the Battle of Britain low quality jibber jabber, with that air of arrogance and presumption as if it was fought yesterday?

oh so you're a right wing person, a "mild fascist" I hasten to add? Cos that's how it comes out following your logic..

I don't think not liking the Grauniad makes anyone a 'mild fascist'.
Of course liking the Daily Mail does put you somewhat to the right of Goebbels.

Regards Mike

Yes...what he said.

Nope. There are basicly three people out there debating. The one who is in to learn, the one who is on a mission and the one who is in to defend. The latter two will go on ad infititum, aptly displayed by a debate going full circles all the time, no sense to get involved again but a few comments here and there. All comments and arguments on this particular point have been made a couple times already.

I guess so, and the same can be said for you it seems.

If that change of plan is forced on you through failure of the initial objective it is.

Perhaps, for the most part I barely notice the existence of an empire, I am not aware of any significant change that would happen to life in the UK without the comonwealth countries headed by the UK monarchy, to us the are and will always be Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, even if the uk had the means to enforce it I seriously doubt it would ever bother maintaining an empire.


nobody seems to begrudge the Americans any of this.......so why is it so offensive that the British want to honour the achievents of our armed forces? it's not a celebration of killing Germans, it is a reminder of what we stood against, if the Germans cant differentiate between a nazi and a German then what hope is there?
The arrogance you percieve is a myth, it suits your mentality.

a perpetual argument cannot be blamed on one participant alone.

it was a mere provocation, I think that opinions that we don't like reading (probably cos they're true) shouldn't be dismissed merely cos they are on a newspaper that leans towards a certain political side.

Absolutely right. "the one" here was not directed at any special person posting here, but a stand in for a freely exchangeable archtetype in such debates.

Indeed...

Hang on....

A thought just germinated.....

HAVE THEY FIXED THE DAMN GAME YET!!!!!!! :grin:

Regards Mike