BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards! The Luftwaffe was far from being in the same dire conditions as the Royal Air Force. If Goering would have taken his stick out of his ar$e and listened to his commanders he would have got the aerial dominance in a matter of a few months. The real issue was that the tactics were changed halfway and it was one of the poorest decisions in the history of warfare.

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

I very much agree with the first part of that. If Goering would have made the elimination of the RAF and RADAR the only priorities, things would have at least been much more difficult for the Brits.

Clearly, the Nazis would have had to pay a dear price for air supremacy but it would have been worth it from a strategic point of view, invasion or not.

I do not agree that the Nazi planes were clearly better or that German pilots were clearly better. The front line fighters on both sides were doing their jobs rather well, the Germans were just at a huge disadvantage in that they were near the limit of their range. Plus, the Brits were fighting at home...when they lost a plane they stood a decent chance of getting the pilot back. When the Germans lost a plane, they usually lost a pilot too. But the Germans did have the numbers advantage.

Another disadvantage the Nazis put themselves into was the inferiority of their bombers. Stukas were severely outclassed by the BoB and British planes made mincemeat out of them and other bombers. They never really developed a strategic bomber. If the Nazis had developed better bombers prior to the BoB, again the Brits would have had a much more difficult time of things.

I think arrogance played a huge role in the Nazi "defeat" in the BoB. I think it again came into play with the decision to invade Russia (never a good idea for dictators lol).

BTW, in that post it may seem that I used the terms "Nazi" and "German" almost interchangeably. I try to keep a clear distinction in my head between the Nazi leadership and the German soldiers and civilians. I understand they were not the same and hope everyone else does too. I try to use the proper term when needed, but sometimes the differences are probably not clear. Hope that makes sense.

Splitter

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

You see, I actually think that the RAF didn't prevent the Germans from winning: both the RAF and Luftwaffe lost around 1000 planes, but at the stage the RAF was on its knees, while the Germans deployed some 4000 aeroplanes for the Operation Barbarossa right afterwards!

This presumes that the battle was a simple 'numbers' game. For the Germans the BIG strategic-level point of the whole aerial battle was to establish air superiority over the south of England so that an invasion could take place.

This they demonstrably failed to do. I think it is fair to say then that they lost the battle - i.e. failed to achieve their strategic objective, and that the British won - i.e. achieved their strategic objective of preventing the Germans from gaining air superiority!

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

The Germans had better planes, better tactics and more planes, after months of wasting resources they just decided to put things "on hold".

Actually the RAF command and control, and Dowding and Park's management of the battle were hugely significant.

At the level of small-scale tactics (section, flight, squadron) the Germans definitely had the advantage early on, but I think it's fair to say they were comprehensively beaten at the operational and strategic levels.

And to say that 'they just decided to put things "on hold" ' brings to mind that old joke about the General telling his troops that they were "not retreating - just advancing in a different direction."

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Bloblast

Yes, surprisingly the British pilot and the commentator conclude that the Bf109e was the better fighter. British pilot argumented that 109 was superior due to the fuel injection engine and it's dominance during dogfight, it could always outdive the British fighters.
Other argument was the time of fire is 3x times more for the 109. Shown was the small .303 bullet, which was called pea shooter in comparison with the canon shells from the 109.

Oh, sorry, maybe it was all about the aeroplanes after all.
So why did they lose again?

[Schepel]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Hi All,

Just finished watching this fine programme - for me definitely the pick of the bunch of the BBC's BOB season.

Provocative and very well informed. As someone who knows his way around the standard story of the battle pretty well there was enough here to really keep me engrossed and a few nuggets that were genuinely new to me.

Better quality of archive footage than usual as well - some great aerial footage of 109s especially.

He also made a pretty convincing argument [starting at ~34mins] that the 109 was the best fighter in 1940 - and yes I have heard ALL the arguments before.

Viewable on BBC iPlayer here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...he_Real_Story/
though I believe unfortunately not accessible for non-UK residents

Highly recommended.

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by Schepel

It says: not available in your area. Would love to see it.

Same.