The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

and even if you might think that his conclusions are similar to mine,

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The historical references I quoted were from your own recommended source.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

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The historical references I quoted were from your own recommended source.

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.

[bongodriver]

If you find it hard to read extremely academic books though,

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

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

[Al Schlageter]

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'?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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'?

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.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

[Skoshi Tiger]

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!

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.