[MoMo]

Thanks, Skunky,

I am officially unhuffed now.

MoMo

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

I believe that we can safely examine the effects of the Battle of Britain in the west without talking about the Clash of Titans on the Eastern Front.

As an Eastern Front aficionado, I believe you are correct. Despite committing mind boggling resources to Operation Barbarossa, Hitler thought it'll be a large scale, but a relatively easy operation: "We'll kick the door, and the whole rotten structure we'll come down". But that was not to be, by August 13th 1941 German casualties had reached a total of 389,924 of whom 98,600 were killed or missing, a grim contrast with the 218,109 casualties and 97,000 dead suffered in all previous campaigns in the West combined.

It's fair to states that after Battle of Britain fiasco, Hitler wanted resources, both, natural AND industrial (the vast majority of the Soviet heavy industry was built with German and American assistance in the 1930s and was modern in their nature) of the Soviet Union to continue its fight against everybody and everything, Great Britain including, but in the end it was British steadfast resolve that pushed Hitler to attack what he thought would turn out to be a weaker opponent.

Regards,

Sergey

[MoMo]

Well said, Sergey,

However, comparisons of casualty figures are misleading, to say the least.

Sometimes casualty figures indicate poor leadership, tactics, wrong strategy, poor weapons, ill-favoured deployment, etc.

Same with resources. Look at how many ships were sunk in the Atlantic when the U-Boat war heated up. Hundreds of thousands of tons sunk, yet Britain fought on.

Same with prisoners. Hundreds of thousands of Italians captured in North Africa, yet the Afrika Korps fought back.

Britain commiting forces to The Greek campaign when it should have cleaned up and finished in North Africa meant a long, drawn-out war there. Churchill's mistake ( a stupid one! ) saved Russia because the assualt on the east was delayed by German intervention in Greece and the Balkans. If the Eastern Campaign had been launched 6 weeks earlier, Russia would have been Kaput!

Strange how the little nuances of strategy have an unintended effect on history! Churchill, the arch anti-bolshevist, saved Stalin's hide by insisting that British troops and resources be diverted from N.Africa to Greece. ( at this time the Brits were looking for any allies they could attract and the Greeks were giving the Italians a hammering ! )

MoMo

[skysurfer808]

Anybody who says Fighter Command didn't save the UK during the Battle of Britain is full of it. Yes the Royal Navy's superiority in ships made it difficult for the Wermacht to attempt its large scale river crossing. But look at Dunkirk, where the British managed to extricate most of its Expeditionary Force, and a couple hundred thousand Frenchmen to boot (most of whom returned home soon thereafter.)

The RAF protected the RN as it evacuated the Dunkirk, indeed Dunkirk was the first major operation which the Spitfire was committed to active service against the Luftwaffe (discounting Home Defense duties). Had the RAF not covered Dunkirk evacuation casualties would have been much worse, as would RN losses. I do agree the entire RAF played a role, as did the RN, but it was Fighter Command which denied Germany control of the air over the English Channel. It took almost 4 years for all the Allies (CCCP included) to seize control of the air from the Germans. Only then could an allied invasion of Europe be mounted. So it is folly to assume the Germans could have invaded Britain without total control of the air.

Looking at Nazi Germany's victories to that point, a certain pattern can be traced. The Germans seized control of the air, the ground forces advanced, and the Luftwaffe supported the Wermacht as it blasted its way through the enemy. Control of the air didn't necessarily come by bombing and air combat, it involved forcing the enemy to cede the initiative in the air. In Poland, Norway, and France the defenders managed to score against the Luftwaffe, but advancing ground forces eventually managed to roll over their bases. What made Britain different was geography pure and simple, which forced the Luftwaffe to operate without the support of ground forces. It was the partnership of Air and Ground that enabled Blitzkrieg to succeed so brilliantly. Without ground armies the Luftwaffe was forced into a campaign it was not designed to fight, against an air force designed to fight just such a battle. Not for nothing did Hitler offer Britain a ceasefire after the end in France.

Therefore, I give credit to the English Channel, the RAF, the RN, and the people of Great Britain as a whole. But it was Fighter Command that kept control of the sky over Britain, thus protecting those below from Luftwaffe attack.

Skysurfer808

[jim]

Bulls eye Skysurfer, Couldnt have put it better myself.

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

Anybody who says Fighter Command didn't save the UK during the Battle of Britain is full of it. Yes the Royal Navy's superiority in ships made it difficult for the Wermacht to attempt its large scale river crossing. But look at Dunkirk, where the British managed to extricate most of its Expeditionary Force, and a couple hundred thousand Frenchmen to boot (most of whom returned home soon thereafter.)

The RAF protected the RN as it evacuated the Dunkirk, indeed Dunkirk was the first major operation which the Spitfire was committed to active service the Luftwaffe (discounting Home Defense duties). Had the RAF not covered Dunkirk evacuation casualties would have been much worse, as would RN losses. I do agree the entire RAF played a role, as did the RN, but it was Fighter Command which denied Germany control of the air over the English Channel. It took almost 4 years for all the Allies (CCCP included) to seize control of the air from the Germans. Only then could an allied invasion of Europe be mounted. So it is folly to assume the Germans could have invaded Britain without total control of the air.

Looking at Nazi Germany's victories to that point, a certain pattern can be traced. The Germans seized control of the air, the ground forces advanced, and the Luftwaffe supported the Wermacht as it blasted its way through the enemy. Control of the air didn't necessarily come by bombing and air combat, it involved forcing the enemy to cede the initiative in the air. In Poland, Norway, and France the defenders managed to score against the Luftwaffe, but advancing ground forces eventually managed to roll over their bases. What made Britain different was geography pure and simple, which forced the Luftwaffe to operate without the support of ground forces. It was the partnership of Air and Ground that enabled Blitzkrieg to succeed so brilliantly. Without ground armies the Luftwaffe was forced into a campaign it was not designed to fight, against an air force designed to fight just such a battle. Not for nothing did Hitler offer Britain a ceasefire after the end in France.

Therefore, I give credit to the English Channel, the RAF, the RN, and the people of Great Britain as a whole. But it was Fighter Command that kept control of the sky over Britain, thus protecting those below from Luftwaffe attack.

Skysurfer808

[jim]

Mo my good friend , I wouldnt give you bad info, trust me on this, meanwhile have a look at a map and ponder a while and imagine you were Hitler. Where would you land? If they had come up the Thames they would have been plastered by everybody. good heavens even the farmers would have been out with their shotguns. If you can give me a little time I will find the reference books for you to look at and also tell you the exact beachs they planned to land on. I say beaches because if memory serves me right the plan was to land on two beaches.

Originally Posted by MoMo

Dear Jim,

Where on earth ( England ) were the Germans going to land? They had nowhere on the South Coast. It just wasn't possible.

The Thames Estuary was their nearest hope and that was just about as far as their fighters could reach. There they would have been plastered by the R.N. Also, 12 Group would have pounced on them.

The Channel would have been out of the picture for the Germans. The R.N. would not have been exposed there.

MoMo

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by jim

I dont think the Luftwaffe thought of it as a side show. The Germans also thought they had defeated England. One last point, if you look at the losses sustained by the Royal Navy in the eastern med do you still say that the Luftwaffe had no ability to sink ships???????????????????

I agree. However the Battle of Britain started mainly because Hitler had a hissy fit and Goering said 'his' luftwaffe could clear the RAF from the skies in short order. Germany fully intended to attack Russia before the Battle of Britain.

When the anticipated quick win over the RAF didn't eventuate Hitler could not postpone the major invasion of Russia any longer because Stalin was aware of Hitler's intentions and was building up Russia's forces. Of course Hitler intended to get back to Britain at a latter date but his invasion of Russia didn't turn out the way he expected - as we all know

There are plenty of 'what ifs' as we have all said before about similar issues. We were just lucky things played out as well as they did.

I don't recall saying much the Luftwaffe's ability to sink ships, I think that was MoMo

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

Aircrafty, you puzzle me sometimes. While I agree that history should not be studied in a vacuum, I also feel that certain aspects of WWII can be studied without examine the macro-effects and intentions. In this case, I believe that we can safely examine the effects of the Battle of Britain in the west without talking about the Clash of Titans on the Eastern Front.

Yes, Hitler had assigned low priority to the conquering of England and did not consider the English his "natural enemies", at least prior to their refusal to make peace with him following the invasion of Poland. However, when you point out that the invasion of England was a sideshow compared to the invasion of Russia, you overlook a few things. First, following the blitzkrieg of Belgium, Holland and France, german armed forces were NOT marshalling for the immediate invasion of the Soviet Union. Second, Hitler was not (contrary to his own beliefs) a military genius. He was apparently incapable of making a geopolitical decision without factoring in what he considered to be personal insults. So when Britain did not sue for peace, he decided to invade (and this against the advice of his senior Navy staff as well as some army generals.)

So, Sea Lion was on. Germany was in a one-front war against Britain in the summer of 1940. In spite of how much we speculate, we shall never know if Sea Lion would have succeeded. Whether accurately or inaccurately, Hitler and Goering set the destruction of the RAF as a precondition to the invasion. Then, just when they were about to succeed in making 11 Group withdraw further inland, Hitler decreed that London should be bombed, allowing the RAF airfields to be rebuilt and 11 Group to continue to intercept the Luftwaffe raids from forward airstrips. 12 Group also became a factor. The RAF wasn't destroyed. Sea Lion was off. Whether Germany could have successfully invaded or not, Hitler didn't even try because a precondition for the invasion that he had set for himself was not achieved.

By failing (by whatever means; force or diplomacy) to eliminate Britain as an enemy, Hitler allowed himself to be sucked into a 2 (or even 3, if you count North Africa and Italy)-front war.

I'm a riddle wrapped up in an enigma

Many historians agree that Hitler considered the Battle of Britian and the North African Campaign as sideshows so I don't understand what the fuss is about frankly. Hitler was mainly concerned with the invasion of mainland Europe and the reduction of people he considered not worthy of living. He commenced the Battle of Britain in a fit of rage and entered the African theatre because Italy were making a mess of it.

I have read a number of books written by his senior staff officers and people that knew him personally. And from what I have read he gave his miltary staff more latitude than Churchill gave his. It was only near the end of the war that Hitler took responsibility for all military actions but by then it was far to late.

He wasn't a military genius but then neither was he a madman. He was a firm believer in survival of the fittest and had little compassion. His main miltary successes were via bold and unexpected actions rather than sound military tactics, but history has shown that battles are often won by bold people doing the unexpected. History has also shown that when people have to much power they tend to abuse it. That is why it's wise to be careful who we place in power and how much power we give them.

That aside, I remind you all that Hitler issued his Directive No 21 in December 1940 being the intended invasion of Russia to protect German oil interests in Rumania and expand Germany territory. And it was this lack of oil that was subsequently the main contributor to Germany's loss.

[jim]

Hi Mo, I have not located the book I want that refers to the invasion sites however I think you might like the SS handbook of Britain. Its a description of how the Nazi would run Britain after the invasion and gives advice on how us Brits think. The book is called .. INVASION 1940.. by SS General Schellenberg. Intro by John Erickson. Its a great insight into how the Germans saw the Brits, grimly it also names 3000 on the Nazis hit list. Heavy reading but interesting non the less.

Originally Posted by jim

Mo my good friend , I wouldnt give you bad info, trust me on this, meanwhile have a look at a map and ponder a while and imagine you were Hitler. Where would you land? If they had come up the Thames they would have been plastered by everybody. good heavens even the farmers would have been out with their shotguns. If you can give me a little time I will find the reference books for you to look at and also tell you the exact beachs they planned to land on. I say beaches because if memory serves me right the plan was to land on two beaches.

Sooner or later I will find that book with the invasion details , stick with me.

[timbo]

Wonderful thread Not sure how I missed it until now

Yes the RAF won the battle by making sure that the invasion never happened, but even if they had been defeted, I don't believe for a moment that it would have been sucessfull. This is no river crossing.

Even if the 11 group had been defeated in August/September, what about 12 group and the rest if the squadrons stationed up north that were never attacked?

I also think that the Germans plan to cross the Channel in Rine barges was increadably stupid. Most of these were unpowered and would have been towed. Anyone who has been over on that sea in a small boat will know how rough it can get on a calm day. These were not craft designed for that type of crossing. How fast would they have gone? 2/3 knots? that puts about a 10 hour crossing at the narrowest point. There is no way in hell that they could dash over at 20 knots+ which is what RO-RO ferries do. I have to say that I think our biggest defense would be that most of the barges would sink on the way.

The U-Boat peril would have been a thorn in the side of the RN surface fleet, and the Stuka's would have had a field day as they did in Greece/Crete but the RN had a v.large sub force, and also MTB's that could have put a huge dent in any re-supply/re-inforcement operation. Even if you get the toops over there, if you can't get adequate fuel/ammunition what are they going to do? Sit around for 6 months??

Also how were they going to land supplies to do the knockout dash to London? Any attempt to capture a port would have left it unusable for months as the facilities would have been blown.

The Germans just didn't have the infrastructure to do it and then support it.