You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The radar unit that was used when Ventnor was destroyed is consistently described as "mobile" or "semi-mobile" depending on the source.
The radar unit that was used when Ventnor was destroyed is consistently described as “mobile” or “semi-mobile” depending on the source.
Whatever it was, it was only used before they repaired the station in a few days.
Semi-mobile might be a better description, as they certainly didn't have the cavity magnetroms that made radar truly mobile in 1940.
My main point is that the German's did not grasp how fundamental the radar stations were to the defense system and paid little attention to them. To say otherwise is nonsense.
Gobuchul,
They wouldn’t of needed
...
Please, please stop using " wouldn't of " etc.
"Wouldn't have needed" is correct. It's difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by bad grammar.
the BoB myth of the “few against the many” which it sort of was, only the other way around, the few was the Luftwaffe, not the RAF…and that you, ironically are arguing for…
Yes I am, because that's what the numbers say wherever you look. In July 1940 when the battle started the RAF was outnumbered:
https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-battle-of-britain/
In July 1940 when the battle started the RAF was outnumbered:
Only slightly, and it still doesn't matter. What matters is time and range. The Luftwaffe's main fighter (the Bf109E) could spend just 10 minutes over the southern coast of the UK, and then it HAD to go home. The RAF fighter that on paper was equivalent (the Spitfire) could spent 4-5 times as long over the airspace, In effect that means the RAF had a significant numerical advantage in every battle. Plus, even if every airbase in southern Britain is destroyed, and every sqn destroyed...That's still just 11 group, there's 10 group and 12 group just to the north and west respectively, The Luftwaffe cannot reach either in significant numbers enough to win...So even if Biggin Hill had been utterly blown to bits and Manston rendered unusable, just fight from Duxford, or Middle Wallop, and if they get destroyed, Upper Heyford and Cottishall...It's never going to go in any other way than a RAF win. The reason for this is that the Luftwaffe is a tactical airforce, it's job is to support the Wermacht, it's now fighting a strategic war against the most sophisticated Air Defence force in the world at the time.
And we haven't even started on repairing airplanes and production of new airplanes or pilot numbers all of which were mostly again significantly in the UK's favour.
Edit: and, that's just the Defensive air war, we haven't talked at all about Bomber Command bombing the shit out of every French coastal Luftwaffe airbase, day and night, and Coastal Command harassing the U-boat pens and the S-Boats...
Please, please stop using ” wouldn’t of ” etc.
“Wouldn’t have needed” is correct. It’s difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by bad grammar.
Yeah OK. I mean it's completely unclear.
Why will you never admit you are wrong? You have some serious issues.
I’ve visited la pointe du Hoc, it’s a sea of craters, what with that and the commandos. By D-day the RAF, paratroppers, resistants, commandos had knocked out the heavy guns but shipping losses were still high, mainly down to torpedos. At least one gun had been moved back to a safer place and was taken by a handful of parras.
As a French speaker, I would of thought you would of known that Pointe has a capital letter?
What's a "paratropper"?
What's are "resistants"?
commandos? I suppose you mean Commando? There were none at Pointe du Hoc. A lot of US Rangers.
torpedos?
parras?
It’s difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by all of these spelling mistakes.
By the way, there were no "heavy guns" on the Normandy coast.
Also, shipping losses were not "high" on D day and most were lost to mines, or were small landing craft destroyed on the beaches.
Sealion was wargamed at sandhurst in 1974
the conclusion....
Although the first echelon landings were more successful than had been anticipated, the German navy's relative weakness, combined with the Luftwaffe's lack of air supremacy, meant they were not able to prevent the Royal Navy from intercepting the second and third echelon Channel crossings. The Navy's destruction of the follow-up echelon forces prevented resupply and reinforcement of the landed troops. This made the position of the initially successful invasion force untenable; it suffered further casualties during the attempted evacuation. Of the 90,000 German troops who landed only 15,400 returned to France. 33,000 were taken prisoner, 26,000 were killed in the fighting and 15,000 drowned in the English Channel. All six umpires deemed the invasion a resounding failure.
think the revisionist term is "Dunkirk in reverse"
some of the assumptions are interesting...
The Luftwaffe continued to attack British airfields after September 7, 1940 instead of bombing London during the day, but despite continuous attacks up to September 19 had not yet established air supremacy; albeit that their intelligence assessments proposed that the RAF was at breaking point.[7]
The Channel Guns had no effect.
The Home Fleet would send its capital ships south.
Chaps please let’s not let what could be a really interesting thread get derailed by unnecessary insults 😉
The Sealion war gaming is interesting - whereas the traditional school of thought might be that Britain’s safety was secured when Hitler turned East, one wonders if actually Sealion wasn’t just a massive distraction and waste of resources, which undermined German chances in Russia.?
It’s also interesting that the Germans don’t themselves seem to have learned the lessons of history ie the difficulty of invading the British isles, and Napoleons retreat from Moscow. But of course people always think they can do it better!
Chaps, this would be a better thread without the sniping.
Moving away from BoB for a minute.
I've read some stuff suggesting that the atom bomb attacks on Japan weren't really all that decisive. They provided an excellent reason for Japan to finally accept total surrender but what really changed the strategic situation was that the Russians has declared war against Japan and could potentially invade them from the East and North where Japan had almost no defenses.
Not sure I agree entirely, but its an interesting twist on the conclusion to the Pacific war.
I haven't criticised your English and won't, gobulchul, that was Moses. It was petty from someone who isn't contributing to the debate, I don't care if you use of or have.
Like you if I understand that's good enough. It would appear I often fail to use capitals when I should in every language I speak. It's really hard work in German where every noun takes a capital. I used to be paid to produce perfect text, these days I have the luxury of being able to type without even looking at what's appearing on the screen.
(was that better, I reread and corrected)
I haven’t criticised your English and won’t, gobulchul, that was Moses. It was petty from someone who isn’t contributing to the debate, I don’t care if you use of or have.
Apologies. I didn't read the post carefully enough.
Grammar Nazi's on an internet forum need to get a life.
Grammar Nazi’s on an internet forum need to get a life.
Well played.
Thanks for that link Klunk, it makes for fascinating reading, didn't know about that before now.
@richmtb, Lehey (General I was reading about that started this topic) was against the use of the atom bomb as he thought it similar in effect to poisonous gas, and he argued, if the US wouldn't use that, then dropping an atomic bomb was equally morally unacceptable*. However, his idea was to allow the Japanese islands to be besieged. They couldn't mount any real form of defence, they had no allies that would come to their aid, and were effectively surrounded. hundreds and thousands, perhaps millions would've starved...Which in turn argues for the use of the atomic bomb as ultimately fewer Japanese are killed...
*It's worth noting that the Allies had little understanding of the effects of the bomb at the time, there was one report that suggested that the ground would be poisonous for at least a thousand years
And again it's political revisionism that bought us the whole myth that the Atom bomb was to prevent the US from having to invade the Japanese home islands. The invasion of Okinawa in '44 had pretty much already put pay to any idea the Americans had had about invading, they realised it was just going to be impossible. Hence the idea of just besieging the Japanese, or trying to persuade the Russian to invade instead...
Okay I will summarise my revisionist viewpoint on WW2.
Battle of France
France had superior equipment to Germany and more of it. Larger Army which was on the whole better trained. Germany invaded France with more horses than they had in 1914.
Germany succeeded due to superior tactics, in particular better communication.
France failed because of poor Generals and were hamstrung because of the messed up Government of the time.
Battle of Britain
The UK were not "alone". They had global reach and the Empire.
The Luftwaffe were never going win by throwing itself against the UK Air Defense system. The radar stations were the most vulnerable component and the only chance they had of achieving air superiority. They didn't understand that.
The "Few" were not the "Few".
Operation Sealion
It would never of succeeded even if the Germans had control of the air. The massive strength of the RN would ensure that. Compare with the planning and power involved in Overlord. The fleet still lost some vessels, despite having Naval and Air Supremacy, never mind just superiority.
Operation Barbarossa
Hitler had no choice. He needed the food and oil that he could take from the USSR. If he didn't he was doomed anyway.
However, it was never going to succeed, insufficient manpower, equipment and crap logistics. Again millions of horses.
Weapons Envy
MG42 couldn't fire 1200 rpm in the real World.
Panther tank was a flawed design that was unreliable and had crazy maintenance schedules.
Sherman tank was far better than given credit for.
The British built the best tank of the war by far.
Panther tank was a flawed design that was unreliable and had crazy maintenance schedules.
Sherman tank was far better than given credit for.
The British built the best tank of the war by far.
you've been watch too much inside the chieftains hatch 😉
you’ve been watch too much inside the chieftains hatch 😉
A bit of Lindyberg to.
Do you disagree?
Yeah, I get the moral arguments for and against using the atom bomb.
The argument that they weren't all that decisive is based on the fact that Japan's cities were already utterly devastated by conventional bombing. Its 10 largest cities lie in ruins from incendiary attacks night after night.
Meanwhile the Japanese military are dug in and heavily fortified on the western coast.
American drops the Atom bomb against the relatively small cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the results are of course absolutely apocalyptic for people in those cities, but the Japanese military still have over a million men defending the Pacific coast.
What really changed was that the Soviets were romping through Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, opening up another front that the Japanese had no prospect of defending.
I'm not sure if its an argument that holds much water. The Japanese weren't stupid, they knew they were beaten but the hoped to make it difficult enough for the Allies that they could gain some concessions before they surrendered.
The atom bombs change that, the Japanese have no way of knowing the Americans only have two bombs and ultimately they changed the strategic balance of the entire world.
Panther tank was a flawed design
it's a funny one really it was overweight for medium tank and kind of undergunned for a heavy. (though the long barreled 75 was lethal with low trajectory and was more than adequate for the combat ranges of the time)
more from the visualized
Chaps, this would be a better thread without the sniping.
No, no, no, the sniping is the icing on the cake of a spectacularly awesome thread. I mean, the quibbling over whether a radar installation was mobile or not is only rivaled this week by the Notepad++ thread. Who would have thought a bike forum could give so much joy?
Battle of France
France had superior equipment to Germany and more of it. Larger Army which was on the whole better trained. Germany invaded France with more horses than they had in 1914.
Germany succeeded due to superior tactics, in particular better communication.
France failed because of poor Generals and were hamstrung because of the messed up Government of the time.
They also had a long line the defend whereas the germans had one place to pierce through. And they were on drugs!
it’s a funny one really it was overweight for medium tank
It started at 30 tonnes but the final build was 45t. A lot of the transmission wasn't up to the job. the final drive failed frequently and was a ****er to replace.
It was also more complex to drive than a Sherman or T34. This also caused more failures.
Admittedly, they had sorted a lot of the problems by late 1944 but it was too late.
I mean, the quibbling over whether a radar installation was mobile or not
How dare you. It's REALLY important! It's all down to the cavity magnetron. (Probably a bit of lockdown fever as well.....)
I think you are forgetting that the "battle of France" wasn't just France, it was an expansion throughout western Europe that only the French had any hope of stopping but didn't. I think the RAF lost more planes than the French, the Dutch pilots did really well... Many French planes didn't even get off the ground for one reason or another.
If you are going to revise you have to see events as a continuity with each event influencing the next; Hitler slowly using up resources and dispersing his forces that would ultimatley result in lost battles down the line.
The Russians were always going beat Hitler whatever happened elsewhere and in whatever order events took place. It didn't matter where he started, one day the Russians were going to get him. He banned the German communist party to get into power in 33. The British and French were stupid not to get into bed with Stalin earlier, if (oh deah, it's that revisionist "if " again") we had agreed to the Russian offer before the war Hitler would have known he couldn't win. We didn't and Stalin signed up to a non-agression pact with Hitler that left Hitler to wear himself out against us in the West for a while. The Yanks finally felt obliged to step in to stop Europe becoming communist which allowed D-day.
It’s all down to the cavity magnetron.
I guess they were a bit lighter than the solid ones.
Yes the drugs. Apparently the Germans began to have reservations about drugging up soldiers as the war went on.
The Brits on the other hand, couldn't neck enough of them. You can draw a line between use of drugs in the British Military and the explosion of recreational use during the 60's mod scene.
The Yanks finally felt obliged to step in to stop Europe becoming communist which allowed D-day.
I thought they were racists who were scared of coloured people.
I always believed that the comparative sizes of the antagonist economies made the outcomes inevitable.
Japan was the only axis power that had the ability to access the resources to sustain the war. Which was effectively stuffed when the us navy submarines effectively blockaded japan.
Germany was essentially resource starved from the beginning so once it was clear they couldn't win quickly it was a matter of time.
I always believed that the comparative sizes of the antagonist economies made the outcomes inevitable.
probably the case since the advent of the industrial revolution. I mean the Scots gave as good as they got and hardly had two pennies to rub together 😉
though on paper North Vietnam vs USA was a bit of a miss match, darn those poxy sorry I mean proxy wars police actions.
The Yanks finally felt obliged to step in to stop Europe becoming communist which allowed D-day.
Eh?
The Yanks finally felt obliged to step in to stop Europe becoming communist which allowed D-day.
Eh?
I know. I gave up at that nonsense. Obvious troll is obvious.
This thread is like a forum form of Mark Corrigan from Peep Show. I’m expecting to see Business Secrets of the Pharaohs next.
JP
Well Britain wouldn't have mangaged D-day without the Americans and the American motivation was clear throughout, a race for Berlin to beat the communists to it. They only just made it into the west of the city with the surrounding area already in the hands of the Soviets. The result was a city cut off from the west and a Russian occupation of East Germany.
The Americans did pretty well from a late start. It's fascinating reading WW2 history in French and German school text books. Just how uncomfortable the US and Russian were as allies comes across and much is made of the division of the spoils - Yalta.
Just a few numbers I won't vouch for: 73 000 American troops and 61 000 British troops took part in D-day of a total of 156 000.
Your sniping really won't help with your guitar sales, Mr Prestidge.
Thanks to all the contributors to the thread for making a rainy day when I've felt too knackered to do anything entertaining and informative. I really must do something constructive now.
This thread is like a forum form of Mark Corrigan from Peep Show
You're posting your comment on a forum for middle aged men who ride bicycles in the woods for fun of which you are a part... Re-arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying;
Green house live if a you stones throw don't in
Still waiting for this mobile radar station information.
Fronm wiki:
On 12 August 1940, four Chain Home stations were targeted for bombing by the Luftwaffe, including RAF Ventnor. The radar station suffered considerable damage with most of the buildings being damaged or destroyed. However, casualties were light with only one soldier being injured. Following this attack, a mobile installation were set up and remained in operation until the station was repaired.
Can't remember where I read it, but I think it was a Chain Home Low type of system, obviously the Chain Home aerials were massive so couldn't ever be mobile.
EDIT: also mentioned here:
https://www.islandeye.co.uk/history/radar/raf-ventnor-chain-home-radar.html
and the BoB myth of the “few against the many” which it sort of was, only the other way around, the few was the Luftwaffe, not the RAF
I've always understood that "the few" wasn't to do with RAF numbers relative to the Luftwaffe, but rather the numbers of RAF pilots relative to the number of soldiers, sailers etc in the other two services. And not forgetting the ground crews who also put in some seriously long, hard shifts.
Hence the famous speech about "so much being owed by so many to so few".
Aye, surely the ‘few’ is just from the context of the speech. It’s as opposed to the ‘many’, being the entire country.
Anyway back to the Panther. I think it was on tank restoration when they took one of the road wheels off, they found it inscribed with the word ‘Italie’ on the inside face, presumably by an Italian slave labourer. Also numerous examples of sabotage ie valve stems partly machined through so they would fail after a period of time. A risky business when parts were subjected to thorough inspections and if any problems were found the whole shift would be executed 😳
Germans always seemed to go for quality over quantity, which might have been fine if outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, but the Yanks and Russians could produce tanks at a prodigious rate.
Please, please stop using ” wouldn’t of ” etc.
“Wouldn’t have needed” is correct. It’s difficult to appreciate an argument when the message is mangled by bad grammar.
And Which Tyler led the Pedant’s Revolt.
Despite you keep banging on about it, ‘Wouldn’t of’ is what people say, and is how it’s often written. And nobody but you really gives a rat’s ass about it.
You’re posting your comment on a forum for middle aged men who ride bicycles in the woods for fun of which you are a part… Re-arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying;
Green house live if a you stones throw don’t in
This thread makes the rest of this forum look like f***ing Shaft, to steal a line from Spaced.
JP
This thread makes the rest of this forum look like f***ing Shaft, to steal a line from Spaced.
Shut your mouth.
The BoB is fascinating, because there is factual support for almost any conclusions you care to draw. It's a question of emphasis, not revisionism. There was a point on the 15th of September when the RAF couldn't have put a plane in the air. The big push by the Luftwaffe that day was hampered by clouds. The pilot training schools were operating at about 2/3 capacity in peace time mode. Nearly 20% of RAF pilots during the BoB were not Brits. They also borrowed pilots from the RN. The German planes were better but their petrol was worse. They don't know about radar, one PO POW convinced his captor that the. RAF had invented really, really powerful binoculars. Those at the top of the Luftwaffe didn't understand Radar and therefore didn't see it as important (sound familiar?). The Radar would see blobs on the screen but couldn't tell what the were or where theyy were headed, often only able to scramble the fighters and direct them after the bombers had dropped their payloads.
The stats on losses etc are seriously dodgy because of the propoganda value etc.
So take your position and find the evidence that supports it. It's all true and also not, Why do you think people are still researching t and making TV programmes about it?
You say the stats are dodgy....but I say if we’re wrong they’ll be in London in a week 😀
I'll bet that when they find Adolf's secret diary, we'll see that was the plan all along.
Get Boris elected, let him put Dom in charge, let them lead negotiations in a week they'll be begging Muti to come and run the place.
They were just thinking much longer term than we realised.
There was a point on the 15th of September when the RAF couldn’t have put a plane in the air.
You mean any more planes, surely?There was one point on that day were 11 and 12 group had committed all available fighters sqdns to intercept a huge German bomber fleet. They had reserves of aircraft, but just not any in these two groups. (until they landed and refuelled, obvs)
The German planes were better but their petrol was worse
some planes, arguably the Bf109E was a more capable fighter than the Spitfire 1 and 2, certainly better than the Hurricane, but the Me110, the Ju87, and Do17 were woeful
Those at the top of the Luftwaffe didn’t understand Radar and therefore didn’t see it as important (sound familiar?)
The Luftwaffe understood radar just fine (they had their own systems that both guided bombers and detected incoming planes, Look up Freya, and Knickerbien) they just didn't understand the RAF's version of radar, as they assumed 1. it would use the same VHF, or UHF wavelengths like there's did, and therefore 2. it would look like theirs, (which Chain Home didn't) They even sent Zeppelins over them a few times before the war to try to work out what they were, and assumed that the background static they were hearing was just something broken in their system..They couldn't work out the significance of it, so they just ignored it*
TBH I know what you're trying to say about evidence and making it seem like it could be portrayed both ways, but it really cant. (or to be more bluntly, you've got to do better than you have in your post...)
* German intelligence gathering in the UK was notoriously poor, and the Luftwaffe's even more so (it was headed by a guy who got his job as he was a mate of Goering's) he couldn't speak English, and got his "intelligence" from reading the foreign press. They eventually worked out what chain home was, but way too late, and as neither Goering or Hitler appreciated getting bad news, the intelligence services decided it was better not to tell them...
the german knew quite a lot about the capabilities of british radar they just weren't very impressed.
Radar at Dunkirk
GL Mk. I sets were deployed with the British Expeditionary Force, along with the MRU units which provided early warning. Following the collapse of the defences and the eventual Dunkirk evacuation, these sets had to be abandoned in France.[15]
There were enough parts left behind for Wolfgang Martini's radar team to piece together the design and determine the basic operational capabilities of the systems. What they found did not impress them.[15] Luftwaffe radars for both early warning (Freya) and gun-laying (Würzburg) were significantly more advanced than their British counterparts at that time,[16] operating on much shorter wavelengths around 50 cm.[17]
This evaluation, combined with the failure of a mission of LZ-130 to detect British radars in August 1939, appears to have led to a general underestimation of the usefulness of the British radar systems. In spite of being aware of Chain Home, German reports on the state of the Royal Air Force written just before the Battle of Britain did not even mention radar at all. Other reports mention it, but do not consider it to be very important. Other sections of the Luftwaffe appear to be dismissive of the system as a whole.[15]
You mean any more planes, surely
Yes
I'll see your ju87 and raise you a Boulton Paul Defiant.
I don't have the time or desire to write the full thesis required to support the idea that it is open to interpretation and the forum certainly wouldn't want that. The support for that position is out there.
As an example, the Brits were making planes faster. True, but only the hurricanes. Spits took longer to make. The HH was used against bombers, couldn't fly at the altitudes the 109 fighters and later bomber versions could so would it have been useful against them? The 109 could drop in on them from height. Also the formations the RAF flew were crap, 4 groups of 3 with the rear v flying above and zigzagging didn't imsotove the situation. There was a reason the Germans called it a line of idiots formation. Would the RAF have changed tactics in time, if necessary? They did when the US got involved. The spit wasn't much good until they fixed the prop and could only stay with a 109 with US gas which somehow they got despite the neutrality pact. The carbs meant it couldn't make negative g manouvres. The argument is that can be overcome by rolling into and out of manouvres. The counter argument is that made it predictable. The experienced Luftwaffe would therefore make mincemeat of the RAF pilots who in some cases had 9 hours in a plane before being sent up.
The senior leadership, including Goering didn't understand Radar, nor did they grasp the importance of chain home. Plenty of Luftwaffe POs and others in the chain of command had no idea what radar was or why it mattered.
There was an attempt by the university at York iirc to analyze statistically the BoB. Their conclusion was had the Germans kept bombing airfields and military infrastructure they would have likely won. Yes there were plenty of fields around the UK but you couldn't be sure you could land your plane on one. They had to be flat and smooth enough or the landing collapsed, the plane went nose in and over and you were trapped miles from help in a plane that might be on fire. The truth is that Hitler wasn't really interested in the UK, he wanted to get onto Russia. Etc etc. Any argument you care to make can be countered
Enjoying the thread apart from some unnecessary sniping.
A couple of things to contribute.
Re. capital ships in the Channel the Germans did manage to get two Scharnhorst class battleships, a heavy cruiser and escorts through the Channel from Brest to the North Sea in February 1942. The ships got through mostly unscathed with coastal artillery and air attacks being ineffective. Both battleships were damaged by mines in the North Sea before reaching their destinations.
Although this was a transit operation rather than an offensive one it does show that capital ships could survive in narrow seas especially when provided with effective air cover. I think the RN would have been willing to lose several battleships to prevent an invasion of England.
The second point is that the key potential turning points were maybe not battles but political decisions.
For example, if Halifax rather than Churchill had become PM in 1940 then it is likely that a peace agreement would have been sought with Nazi Germany. This would have freed the Germans to pursue a single front war against Russia (apart from maybe assisting the Italians in the Balkans). Operation Barbarossa could have been launched earlier with more troops (no Africa Corps needed or invasion of Crete) which would have seen the Germans take Moscow before Winter set in. Russia might not have given up when Moscow fell but it would have been a massive blow which, combined with my war supplies from the UK and USA, may well been decisive.
True, but only the hurricanes
The Hurricane was a good aircraft. It was slower than the 109 and couldn't climb as fast or as high but it could out turn a 109 and was a very stable gun platform . Hurricanes destroyed plenty of 109's. It could also take a beating and still get the pilot home.
The experienced Luftwaffe would therefore make mincemeat of the RAF pilots who in some cases had 9 hours in a plane before being sent up.
They simply did not make "mincemeat" of them. There were inexperienced on both sides, particularly towards the end of the BoB.
The truth is that Hitler wasn’t really interested in the UK, he wanted to get onto Russia.
Hitler expected the UK to negotiate a peace treaty when France fell. When the UK didn't, he no way of destroying the UK and the Empire. Germany was a land centric, European power. The UK was a Global superpower.
He wanted to get into Russia because Germany had insufficient resources, he needed oil, food, coal etc. Without those extra resources he was doomed anyway. The German economy would of collapsed.
had the Germans kept bombing airfields and military infrastructure they would have likely won.
They stopped bombing the airfields because they had shit intelligence. They totally underestimated the remaining strength of the RAF, the rate of aircraft production and the number of new pilots.
Their conclusion was had the Germans kept bombing airfields and military infrastructure they would have likely won.
If the Uni of York concluded that, then they're wrong as well...
There was much talk earlier in the thread about the German bombing of London giving the RAF a respite*, when in fact by mid-august the RAF had realised that the German's obsession with "precision" dive bombing meant that they never really inflicted a killer blow and they could quite easily absorb anything that the Luftwaffe threw against it . They sent Ju87/88, often in single squadrons to bomb say a airfield or a target and if they found the right target at all, would often not do enough damage. The Luftwaffe high command were obsessed with dive bombing to the point of blindness to it's failings, they had the Ju88 redesigned to include a dive bombing capability that made it a much worse aircraft and the Me210 was hugely over-budget and delayed for the same reason. They even had a squadron of 109 converted to fly dive bombing missions. all of which is fine if you're using the aircraft against Polish sword wielding horseback cavalry, but counts for naff all against the most sophisticated air defence system in the world at the time.
The senior leadership, including Goering didn’t understand Radar
Sorry but this is just wrong. They knew what radar was and had captured some RAF radar units from France, they concluded erroneously that it wasn't very good. They had all sorts of their own radar systems Freya, Wotan, Knickerbein, all very successful and pretty impressive. They targeted Chain Home to begin with, but when it became obvious that Ju87 couldn't operate over the UK, the Luftwaffe's only aircraft capable of destroying them was taken from the battle
I’ll see your ju87 and raise you a Boulton Paul Defiant.
Oh sure, the Defiant wasn't any good against 109's, but at least it could be pressed into the night fighter role, to which it actually acquitted itself reasonably well, until replaced by Beaufighters, the JU87 had to taken from the Western front entirely and was only ever used (along with other out of date rubbish like the He111, and Do17) on the Eastern front.
* When Tommy Elmhurst (Air Ministry) heard that Churchill wanted to retaliate after the Luftwaffe raids that bombed London on the night of the 24th/25th, he thought it was a massive error, he made the case that I did, that the RAF could withstand anything the Luftwaffe threw against it, and any diversion by the RAF to bomb civilians in Germany would only make the Luftwaffe escalate their bombing of London...He was dead right as well...
The Hurricane was a good aircraft. It
MkII, from mid 1940 yes, once they'd fixed the glaring flaws, like the airscrew. MkI not really. Plus the 109 had far superior underside camouflage and better altitude capability.
They simply did not make “mincemeat” of them. There were inexperienced on both sides, particularly towards the end of the BoB.
You missed "counter argument" and "would". It's not about what did happen but what might have - every argument there is a counter etc.
Hitler expected the UK to negotiate a peace treaty when France f
Thats one take. The other is he hoped for it but really wasn't particularly interested because he wanted to get on with crushing the Russians, who he hated, and didn't have any particular Animus for the Brits. Argument - counter argument etc.
Separate post about the Spitfire/Bf109 stuff...
Would the RAF have changed tactics in time, if necessary?
They pretty much had already, most of the RAF pilots that had seen combat in France already understood that the formation air fighting tactics the RAF had developed earlier in the war (attack line 1-4) were hopeless, and had already started to copy the Germans (and so does everyone else to this day).
I think it's pretty clear that the Bf109E-4/5 was a better aircraft that the SpitfireMk1 in the summer of 1940. On paper they were pretty similar, but in several crucial aspects the 109 was better; It was faster, had a better climb and dive rate and better weapons. Some folk have made the point that the Spitfire could turn tighter, but TBH that's not much use in A2A combat. Also the Spitfire would side slip badly in a tight turn and lose both speed and height, neither of which is good for survival in combat, plus it would stall, drop a wing and spin, so in practice most spitfire pilots tended not to turn too tightly if they could, however the 109 didn't slip, had pretty good stall habits and could deploy leading edge slats to again tighten it's turn radius, so while on paper the Spitfire was better in a turning fight, in reality it wasn't.
The advantage the RAF had over the 109s was that they could be vectored above them by very good ground control (It constantly surprised the Luftwaffe) and dive down, while 109s were being held tightly against bomber formations, who would chewed to pieces if left without fighter escort. One diving attack, zoom away before the 109s could get into a fight, and climb, reform, do the same thing again. In 10 mins the 109s had to go home anyway...
The Luftwaffe, given the aircraft they had, their poor understand of the air defence capability of the RAF, their own hubris, poor intelligence gathering, and over reliance on dive bombing were always always going to lose.
EDIT: Christ, I am a massive nerd... 🙂
They totally underestimated the remaining strength of the RAF, the rate of aircraft production and the number of new pilots.
Or they knew the training schools had no idea how desperate the shortage of pilots was and weren't even running at capacity.
If the Uni of York concluded that, then they’re wrong as well…
You are going to have to come up with a better counter argument than that. Otherwise we are just going to sit here saying you're wrong, no YOU'RE wrong. Have you even read it?
Sorry but this is just wrong.
As above. Plenty of aources, including from inside the Luftwaffe say this. Plus as above.
When Tommy Elmhurst (Air Ministry) heard that Churchill wanted to retaliate after the Luftwaffe raids that bombed London on the night of the 24th/25th, he thought it was a massive error, he made the case that I did, that the RAF could withstand anything the Luftwaffe threw against it, and any diversion by the RAF to bomb civilians in Germany would only make the Luftwaffe escalate their bombing of London…He was dead right as well…
Plenty inside the RAF thought he was wrong, except that by goading the Germans into bombing civilian targets they saved the RAF and won the battle of Britain. Argument - counter etc.
You missed “counter argument” and “would”. It’s not about what did happen but what might have – every argument there is a counter etc.
Or they knew the training schools had no idea how desperate the shortage of pilots was and weren’t even running at capacity.
I have no idea what these 2 statements mean??????
he experienced Luftwaffe would therefore make mincemeat of the RAF pilots who in some cases had 9 hours in a plane before being sent up.
Is that cited from Blackadder or Wikipedia? If you check Wikipedia in about 5 minutes, you'll see it says the RAF had a very effective training scheme and this number is nonsense.
Or they knew the training schools had no idea how desperate the shortage of pilots was and weren’t even running at capacity.
The RAF never, at any point of the Battle of Britain, were in danger of being short of pilots. It's a myth. The records are very very clear here. for example: by July the RAF had in training (in reality conversion as most of them knew how to fly) well over 550 European pilots who'd escaped. 303 sqn (for instance) was one of three sqds entirely manned by Polish pilots, repeated in 71, 121, 133 (Americans) and 349 sqn (Belgian) was one of four... and so it went on.
You are going to have to come up with a better counter argument than that.
Nope, I don't have to at all. The opening statement on this thread is all about the fact that each battle of WW2 proceeded exactly as the forces arrayed at the outset of each battle predicts it would. The BoB is entirely consistent with that statement.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Bf109E-4/5 was a better aircraft that the SpitfireMk1 in the summer of 1940. On paper they were pretty similar, but in several crucial aspects the 109 was better;
Whichmis interesting that you claim that because the RAF tested captured 109s and found the HH and spit were better planes in battle. I let you read the actual reports rather than try to summarize here.
you check Wikipedia in about 5 minutes, you’ll see it says the RAF had a very effective training scheme and this number is nonsense.
Posted 6 minutes ago
Well if Wikipedia says so it must be true. You might want to try reading e.g. Sir Max Aitken or Len Deighton in the subject.
The RAF never, at any point of the Battle of Britain, were in danger of being short of pilots. It’s a myth. The records are very very clear here
That's just wrong.
The opening statement on this thread is all about the fact that each battle of WW2 proceeded exactly as the forces arrayed at the outset of each battle predicts it would. The BoB is entirely consistent with that statement.
Only if you believe the Brits should have won. There is plenty of factual information that says they shouldn't have. From reputable sources based on sound info and research
Nope, I don’t have to at all.
And yet you expected me to earlier. I oot.
I let you read the actual reports rather than try to summarize here.
because I am a massive nerd 🙂 I already have. It's were the detail about turning circles comes from. They concluded that without a decent armament and engine upgrade (the Mk5 and Mk9) the Spitfire wasn't going to be much use...
Interestingly, it also concludes that one of the issues with the Spitfire was that it was relatively easy to fly to it's limits, meaning the difference that a really good pilot could bring to bear vs a average or poor pilot wasn't much. whereas the difference a really good pilot in a Bf109 made was a massive influence. In the right hands the Bf109 was a monster.
There is plenty of factual information that says they shouldn’t have. From reputable sources based on sound info and research
No, there isn't, feel free to bring any of it (and I really do mean that) to the discussion. Nothing you've said so far bears scrutiny. It's mostly the sort of myth and the sort of research that was being written in the 1970's, which was pretty poor frankly. It has been dismissed by most historians who've read first hand or original sources, such as the "lack" of pilots for example
RAF pilots who in some cases had 9 hours in a plane before being sent up.
oh yeah, missed this one...Right, Baby RAF pilots had 3 training schools to get through before being sent anywhere near a fighter sqn. Basic training (which admittedly by the summer of '40 had been cut from 8 weeks to 7), had them flying in Miles Magisters, if they passed that they went to an intermediary unit which sorted them into either bomber/transport/coastal command and fighters, another 6 weeks of training, then finally a semi operational OCU where they spent another 8 weeks conversion training which for fighters was a min flying log of 40 hrs on type.
It's true to say that many replacement pilots heading to 11 group sqns often didn't have much combat flying experience, from an OCU they were often posted first to sqns in 12 and more commonly 10 group, but the idea that the RAF were sending up pilots with just 9 hours of total flying time is bunkum (and I suspect is a line from the 1960's film of the same name)
The spit wasn’t much good until they fixed the prop and could only stay with a 109 with US gas which somehow they got despite the neutrality pact. The carbs meant it couldn’t make negative g manouvres.
IIRC, it’s the carbs on the Spits Merlin that was the main issue, the Bf109 had a supercharger which helped its performance in climbs - no idea at all whether US fuel would have made a significant difference or not, but the blower certainly did.
Going back a bit to a discussion about tanks, the German tanks were very good in lots of ways, but were often too complicated and susceptible to breaking down, Tigers had a drivetrain that was prone to failing at inopportune moments. There was even a Porsche designed petrol-electric hybrid, but it didn’t really make it into service. There was the Elephant, a massive thing, weighing over 80 tons, I think, but it was slow, difficult to manoeuvre, and easily bogged down if the weather turned wet. Used mainly as a movable siege weapon.
We didn’t have much that could match a Tiger 1, until some bright spark had a lightbulb moment and managed to persuade someone higher up the food chain that what was needed was a Sherman with a bigger gun, and managed to crowbar a 17lb-er cannon into the Sherman turret by turning it sideways to get the breech-block in. Plus a big counterweight on the back of the turret so it didn’t fall over! One fairly successful German tank wasn’t even German though; the Hetzer was built by Skoda, but worked so well it was introduced into the German army after the Czech Republic fell and the factory taken over.
Pity my regular drinking buddy isn’t available at the moment, he’s a tank obsessive, and knows all sorts of obscure stuff about most armoured fighting vehicles, I, on the other hand, barely remember anything much unfortunately.
You're slowly destroying your arguement that the Luftwaffe couldn't win the BoB, Nick. 😉
The early 1940 Spitfire and 109 E-3 were reckoned to be roughly matched with different strengths and weaknesses. The 109 E4/5 was the superior plane as you say but they only had a handful of E-4s in July 40 and no E-5s if you check production dates, the older E-3s had 180bhp less. Only 600 109s were lost in the period when 1000 Spitfires and Hurricanes were lost. When they didn't have to defend bombers the 109 E3s were a match and the ME 109s E4s had the upper hand, and the Germans had enough of them to possibly gain air superiority if that had been maintained as the only objective. So it was down to tactics rather than a foregone conclusion. If the ME 109s had just been given the task of gaining air superiority to allow bombing aimed at attacking the RAF and aircraft production the outcome was uncertain. As it was they were assigned to flying with bombers where they were vulnerable.
Happy to be corrected, not my speciality, I just had a look at wiki and a couple of war plane sites as my memory said that the Spit and 109 leap frogged each other in technology through the early part of the war before the Focke-Wulf 109 became the new adversary to beat.
@countzero Firefly was a beauty alright, and interesting that, rather like the Mustang, it was the happy result of a ‘bitsa’. But it was also compromised like a lot of these things, since it had no room for a coax MG. This made it very vulnerable to infantry attack. Not many tanks that could put the fear of god into Tiger crews until the Firefly came along though.
Bf109 had a supercharger which helped its performance in climbs
All high-performance aircraft back then had some form of supercharging. As I understand it, early Merlin engines had pretty basic superchargers, later ones had multi-speed, multi-stage superchargers which gave much better high-altitude performance. On top of that, U.S. refineries could produce high-octane fuel in massive quantities. That allowed engines to be run at high boost, which makes a massive difference.
Ed, apologies, you're absolutely right about the 109 variants, it was E-3/4 that saw service in Summer 1940 thanks for the correction, and you're right about Luftwaffe tactics, there were pretty poor. Fighter pilots were always complaining about the fact they had to stick with the bombers. But don't forget, they would've still had the same range and time over UK issue. That's not going to go away regardless of the tactics, and un-escorted bombers like the He111 and Do17 (the main offensive weapons) are sitting ducks for Spitfires and Hurricanes. The numbers of fighters lost hides the fact that shot down RAF planes can often be repaired or replaced with new, and RAF/Air Ministry were much better in this regard. But lost Luftwaffe planes (those that crash land in the UK) are lost for good (including the pilot, dead or captured), and even if they make it back to France, their repair facilities were not nearly as well coordinated, and they're just not replacing pilots and planes quickly enough. The Luftwaffe in 1940 cannot fight an attritional war with the RAF over the UK and win, as the Luftwaffe just isn't set up to do that.
But, enough about BoB, lets have more tanks, I know sod all about tanks, and that sounds much more interesting.
Tanks you say - revisionism you say - read Valeri Zamulin - Demolishing the Myth - there was no big tank battle at Prokhorovka - lots of fighting though. Lesson 1 - don't invade Russia.
Thanks for the recommendation old donald, I'll scuttle off to Amazon...
Lesson 1 – don’t invade Russia
haha, something hard learnt!
I'd just like to say that I'm really enjoying this discussion. Cheers.
their repair facilities were not nearly as well coordinated,
Part of the problem was that the German approach to aircraft manufacturer was more like hand crafted skilled artisan workman rather than the mass production we had. It was easy to swap parts to repair our a/c , but harder for the Germans.
But, enough about BoB, lets have more tanks, I know sod all about tanks, and that sounds much more interesting.
[ video] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChl-XKVVBAzoEVsnbOfpcqw [/video ]
Why does the youtube thing not work?
The issue with fuelling is as commented earlier in the thread. 109s were fuel injected and the Merlin engine was carburettor. The Germans found they could leave an engagement with a bunt manoeuvre - push the stick hard forward and simply dive away. The British aircraft couldn’t do that as the carb float would rise up and briefly cut the power. Pilots got around it by half rolling into the dive by which time the enemy was gone. They developed a revised float design but not until after the Battle.
Ref flying aircraft to their limits I’ve seen it written that the RAF had more faith in the structural strength of both their main fighters whereas the Me109 was known to pull the wings off in highest speed dives. Not sure of evidence for this.
Ref training and flying hours Geoff Wellum (First Light) joined his operational squadron (92) flying Spitfires, with zero hours on Type...
But, enough about BoB, lets have more tanks, I know sod all about tanks, and that sounds much more interesting.
for a modern 6.5ft tankers take on tanks He comes at it from the end users perspective.... what's it like to live with as a crew, ease of maintenance (mostly track tension), is the rear deck a nice place to sleep, how easy is it to get in and out off, the driving position...
Ref training and flying hours Geoff Wellum (First Light) joined his operational squadron (92) flying Spitfires, with zero hours on Type…
In August 1939. He clocked up his hours and received combat training from his squadron until he finally flew in a combat mission in June 1939. Even then he wasn't in a "front line" squadron. He wasn't in the front line until September 1939. So over a year later.
but harder for the Germans
Oh for sure, plus Willy Messerschmidt while a pretty good designer was pretty bad at actually running an aircraft factory., it's pretty well known he really wasn't interested, but he was a Nazi favourite...And of course later in the war, the whole slave labour thing really slowed up production, everything had to be double checked for sabotage
I’ve seen it written that the RAF had more faith in the structural strength of both their main fighters
The Air ministry comparison flights reports of WW2 make for fascinating reading. I'd highly recommend grabbing a copy if you can. the notes on wing loading and the difference it made to the handling characteristics of the various planes, really makes the different design philosophies of the Germans and British clear.
On a side note, it's very interesting that when after the BoB the RAF started doing fighter sweeps into France and the Low Countries, in late '40 and early '41 they started to have (very quickly) the same sort of losses and effect that the Luftwaffe suffered in the previous months, ie they started losing a bunch of airplanes and pilots for not much impact.
Oh my goodness, look at all those Tank videos!
Nerd fest 🙂