Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Now that is some pathetic sheet! Pure postwar-propaganda.
Sometimes I'm pretty glad, that I am living in the 'land that lost'.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed. The German onslaught in Western Europe was brought to a halt for the first time.

The following year Hitler led the German nation against Russia and the rest is history..........

I'd be very interested in hearing how this period of history is taught in German schools these days.

[Crumpp]

They did give the RAF the edge, the LW could not sustain the rate of attrition that daylight raids entailed.

If their logistical system was different and they did not tie the airframe to the unit, it would have overcome much of the attrition problems.

They still had pilot shortages but they also never took the emergency measures that England did to fill those shortages. The Luftwaffe fought the campaign with the same pilot pool that started the war.

Dowding with much foresight was shoving anyone who could fly into a fighter cockpit during the battle.

The Luftwaffe was the winner on a tactical level and suffered a lower attrition rate because of it.

Warfare is filled with such examples of forces winning the tactical fight on the battlefield but not achieving a strategic victory. What matters ultimately England was not invaded by the Germans. The Allies are the clear winner in the Battle of Britain.

It would IMHO have been at least another month for things to become impossible if the bases had been continually bombed (though they were becoming uncomfortable at the time Hitler switched), and even that is by no means a certainty. By a couple of months, the autumn weather would have been too rough for the crossing.

I agree with your assessment. Galland points out that plans for the invasion were not considered serious by the officers of the German Military.

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

It certainly reads as post-war propaganda and offers a very myopic view that does not accurately reflect the facts.

The Spitfire and Hurricane were indeed new and faster than the biplanes they had recently replaced. They did give the RAF the edge

No they did not give the RAF the edge. They simply put the aircraft on par. this made things more difficult for the Luftwaffe but it not factual to say the Spitfire and Hurricane won the battle by defeating the Bf-109.

The facts say the tactical battle was a loss for the Hurricane and Spitfire.



The Strategic battle was won by the RAF for a number of reasons.

The RAF had the best interception and control procedures in the world. They had more SE fighters and maintained a much higher sortie rate. This was backed up by a brilliant logistical system that allowed their units to maintain very high operational readiness states.



Individual aircraft performance had nothing to do with it at all. The performance margins simply are not large enough.

[arthursmedley]

Crump, before we get into an argument over semantics this is a school work-sheet for, I would presume, nine to eleven year olds. It is not "propaganda", it is factual.

Kids in this age range are taught a basic factual time line. The Spitfire and the Hurricane did give the RAF the edge in the battle. I would imagine the outcome rather different if the RAF had been flying Gladiators. The worksheet nowhere says these planes defeated the '109. It is about the tools the RAF had been newly equipped with.

You are correct that a number of other factors came into play however the carriculum can't cram everything in and for this age range should'nt either. Note how it says "historians are interested". At this age the idea is to equip the kids with the tools they'll need further on in their school career.

I find the use of the word "propaganda" in this thread interesting too. Not something we British need to use too often as we're very rarely subjected to it.

[Crumpp]

It is not "propaganda"

Sure it is...

: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

It builds national pride in British Children. It is not different than "George Washington and Cherry Tree" type stories we get told are fact as children in the United States.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-Histo...history-20.htm

Every country does this with their children.

The worksheet nowhere says these planes defeated the '109.

That is how I read it.

It definitely leads the reader to make the assumption and paints the picture the Luftwaffe was defeated because of the Spitfire and Hurricane.




The sheet poses the question question: Why did the RAF win the Battle of Britain?

And it answers the question: "the RAF had the edge over the Luftwaffe with its new faster fighters the Spitfire and Hurricane."

[ElAurens]

Does all this verbal self abuse really matter?

The Gemans lost, and it's a damn good thing.

[arthursmedley]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;298958]





That is how I read it.

It definitely leads the reader to make the assumption and paints the picture the Luftwaffe was defeated because of the Spitfire and Hurricane.

You read it that way because you're a middle-aged aero-engineer in the mid-west not a nine year old British school kid.

The Luftwaffe was defeated because of the Hurricane and Spitfire, not the Gladiator or Defiant. They inflicted on the LW a rate of attrition it was unable to sustain. The LW task was to establish air superiority over southern England. In this they were defeated. A tactical defeat.
The establishment of air superiority was a prerequisite for any invasion attempt. As this was not established no invasion attempt was made in the summer of 1940. A strategic defeat.

The Spitfire and Hurricane were not put in the air by the "allies" either but by Great Britain and were flown by members of the RAF from Great Britain and it's dominions, a handful of brave Americans and some very determined Czechs and Poles.

These are facts. Not "propaganda."

Are you sure American schools still teach the George Washington thing?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Why exactly is this school work sheet "Pure postwar-propaganda"? It seems to lay out a basic factual timetable with fairly accurate figures does it not?

No, it contains wrong information - or at least a bent truth - and the relations are exaggerated. "...the small innocent britain all alone versus the mightly german warfare power..." - in that picture...

The German onslaught in Western Europe was brought to a halt for the first time.

But not by the RAF - by The Channel!

The following year Hitler led the German nation against Russia...

Thats what allied politics wanted Germany to do since WW1 ended.

I'd be very interested in hearing how this period of history is taught in German schools these days.

Well thats different... grown up in the GDR (socialistic) I've got taught a quite extreme version of history. Nowadays its a western based sight, but Germany's self chosen role in the world as a 'Offender nation', which has to bow head about our history, hasn't been overcome yet by our politics (at least I feel so). And so the school stuff is not the same, but similar as in that british sheet. Allies won, because we as the bad ones just couldn't win. We... however... don't get teached pride for our country, even if it has nothing to do anymore with the one from 1933-1945. And maybe thats a pity, but maybe not.

[kimosabi]

Not by the RAF? C'mon. Who honestly believes that the RAF and its tactical situation had nothing to do with defeating the LW?

The LW had its own struggles, that's for sure, by fall 1940 they suffered from lack of resources, lack of experienced pilots and got down-prioritized on the western front. Most pilots during the start of the BoB had atleast 3 years experience. Majority of the resources went east for the Soviet campaign. They were on serious fuel shortage, U.Steinhilper mentioned in his book that they were cut down on fuel and the hourly engine warm ups was stopped because of that shortage and so on. They even started mixing small amounts of fuel in the engine oil to get the performance from the engines needed for a scramble from cold starts. Figured that should save them some drops.

Couple more things about the LW and its tactics. The schwarm formation was good and all but the setup of that schwarm was highly ineffective for the guys not leading it. They used "katschmareks" at the back, which only role was to protect the wing leaders/higher rank and usually they were the most inexperienced pilots. The high scorers like Galland was always under protection from a "katschmarek", usually never the other way around. It was never a collaboration and that cost them dearly. Many claims that those tactics were in fact reducing their pilot stock from the "recruitment side" which explains why they were in such shortage of pilots early on.

Secondly, widespread use of "Freie Jagd" basically served as intel for the RAF and RAF usually routed their wings away from those so that they could focus on bomber formations. LW tipped off the RAF too much by doing that and the LW probably severely underestimated RAFs radar, comms and control systems. LW didn't know how much RAF knew IMO.

And lastly, tactical situation. There were one time where RAF was under heavy pressure and that was up to the end of the airfield raids and bombings. Suddenly the Germans focused on bombing London and cities which resulted in some extra breathing space for the RAF. Besides the fact that UK had more resources, huge tactical advantage, higher production and better recruitment, I guess the LW had a chance. But not with the antique attitudes they struggled with from a less mature air warfare that many pilots from the Legion Condor enforced.

[Blackdog_kt]

Some pretty good points all around and a very balanced analysis from Crumpp which i mostly agree with, except the propaganda part (i wouldn't call a simplified school assignment meant for 10 year old children that).

On another note:

Originally Posted by kimosabi

They even started mixing small amounts of fuel in the engine oil to get the performance from the engines needed for a scramble from cold starts. Figured that should save them some drops.

This is not about fuel economy, it's for making the engine easier to start. When the oil is cold it's more viscous and needs more torque for the engine to fire, placing a strain on the starter motors and/or battery supply in case of failed starts and subsequent retries, not to mention having to wait longer until it warms up because otherwise the oil pressure is too much, pipes burst and oil leaks develop.

By mixing fuel the oil can be diluted and that lowers its viscosity, making the engine easier to start. Eventually, the fuel in the oil gradually burns and/or evaporates and things are back to normal.

The way i read the whole thing is that since they couldn't afford fuel for hourly warm-ups to maintain the engines in a "ready to run" condition, they started using the next best alternative method.

Many aircraft (especially the USAF ones and probably most of them) later in the war had oil dilution switches just for that purpose, so the engineers wouldn't have to manually mix fuel into the oil reservoir. If a pilot expected cold weather during his next start-up and take off or if the plane was to be left with the engine off for a longer period of time, the pilot would set the oil dilution switches to on after landing and keep the engine running for a few minutes before shutting down.

This ensured that on the next start-up, oil would be pre-mixed with fuel and the engine would be easier to start.

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

This is not about fuel economy,it's for making the engine easier to start.

According to one of the guys that was there, yes it was. DB601's(or 605's for that matter) never had start problems compared to carburetted allied engines. Fuel savings by thinning out the oil a bit compared to warming up a 35/37L V12 every hour is pretty self explanatory. It was also a great compromise because cold starts with dilluted oil kinda messes up the viscosity quite a bit. Some claimed that the gasoline in the oil would vapourize and ventilate out from the crankcase but they also knew that cold starts with that dilluted oil would put more friction on internal components as opposed to warm ups thus decreasing the engine's operating time between rebuilds/check ups. Which is pretty accurate.