Germany did not lose the Battle of Britain

[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?