That's right, but it still wouldn't have guaranteed them victory.
Nope, not at all, their entire strategy was at fault simply because even by 1 August none of the commanders nor Goering could agree on exactly what was the best way to go about destroying the RAF, and they had completely underestimated how many RAF fighters the British had. Regarding the German plans, they couldn't agree on what specific targets should be attacked or what approach they should take. This is evident in all the records surviving of German meetings held between commanders and Goering.
Sperrle wanted to destroy the RAF in passing while ports and supply lines were under attack, but Goering had excluded Channel ports from the list of targets stipulated on his document of 21 July because they were required for the invasion, while Kesselring thought that attacking ports would result in too high attrition. Kesselring, in fact was sceptical about attacking the UK at all and argued for attacking Gibraltar first, then attacking London. London, of course was initially off the table because Hitler had forbidden attacks on the capital, but junior commanders still supported the ideas of terror attacks on the civilian population. Of course, Goering rejected Kesselring's views because (once again, as I've said before) he underestimated the number of fighters the RAF had up to that point (which, I've been saying was the biggest strategic blunder the Germans made) and based his plans on a three-phase assault for destroying those fighters across lines of battle approaching the capital.
Osterkamp, the only one with his finger on the pulse correctly assessed that the RAF had more fighters than Goering was predicting and that experience by the bomber crews was proving him correct. At that meeting, Goering angrily interrupted him and told him that was nonsense, claiming that the Luftwaffe's intel was accurate and that Osterkamp himself had once stated the RAF was too cowardly to come up and fight, which Osterkamp did not state, and he corrected Goering and stated that the Listening service had heard that the British tactic was to refuse to be baited into coming out in force against masses of fighters, which was used as a tactic to lure the RAF into combat to whittle their numbers down.
All this does is prove beyond doubt that the Germans couldn't agree on the banalities of the task ahead, which hindered their approach going forward, particularly since Goering based his entire strategy on faulty intelligence.
I don't think anyone here has claimed that the Germans didn't know about British radar and you've raised this point before and you've been told exactly the same thing before; the Germans did not understand the entire Dowding system and how it worked.
Nope, as I've said before, as long as the Germans are insisting on basing their intel on combat reports alone, they were never going to be anything but behind the curve. The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain as much as Dowding's and Park's tactics won it. Experts who have written books on the subject acknowledge this, even the German commanders themselves were advising it was the case - Goering refused to listen to Osterkamp, who had a better idea of British tactics as any one else, and he was right to think the British had more fighters than Goering thought. Goering's numbers were out by around two to three hundred fighters available to the RAF.
The meeting I refer to in which Goering held and Osterkamp, Sperrle and Kesselring attended took place on 1 August and it was intended that Goering lay his plans down for the coming Eagle attacks, but he wasn't counting on his top three generals railing against him, or at least providing him with their own assessment of the situation as it was up to that point. Osterkamp, as the leader of JG 51 was in a unique position as he had flown in combat against the RAF even went as far as praising the Spitfire in combat, but Goering rubbished him and claimed the Bf 109 was superior. He wrote about this meeting and it is clear that the strategy for destroying the RAF was far from complete or even practicable. Goering simply had no idea what he was up against and wouldn't listen to those who did.
"Nope, not at all, their entire strategy was at fault"
This is a rehash of the same old claim that 'strategy' could have made the difference rather than equipment. It's also a rehash of the double standard where every piece of information the Germans are missing in the first 3 weeks of the Battle on British aircraft production and loses or the centralised Chain Home Radar system is proof of Germans are bumbling rather than just proof of British secrecy. Secrecy is what one tends to practice during a war.
In reality the 'faulty intelligence' Goering supposedly based his campaign on can be traced to inappropriate equipment: the lack of a high speed reconnaissance aircraft.
Thanks for using at least 1 date, the
1st of August 1940 when the meeting with Goering took place.
Let me get some dates down. Wikipedia states the Battle of Britain (really a campaign) started on
10th July 1940 (20 days before the meeting you base your argument on)
The events prior to that are this:
May 30 1940 the Germans are still trying to make peace with Britain. Things start to change by
mid June 1940.
The various Fuherer directives to destroy the RAF were issued by June 14th
and came not as part of the plan for a possible operation SeaLion but to stop the RAF's further bombing of the Ruhr Basin.
Hitler wants to get on with preparing for Operation Barbarossa. Doenitz's analysis of SeaLion highlights the extreme difficulties. SeaLion 1940 is seen as a last resort.
When the
1 August 1940 meeting takes place the Luftwaffe had been flying against the RAF over Britain for
only 20 days.
Now Goering comes across as a c*nt and his accusatory talking out of his ass style doesn't help analyse information as it comes in but the other commanders are clearly competent. They are not "bungling" for not understanding the extent or effectiveness of the RAF centralised control via CH radar. They are bringing up various strategies that might be employed and even Goering is thinking ahead that with SeaLion a possibility that docks might need to be preserved. These are the men that just successfully invaded Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium and Norway fighting of British forces in 2 of them.
Remember the priority Fuhrer Directive is to destroy the RAF to protect the Ruhr from the RAF.
So the Germans didn't understand the capabilities of the Chain Home system. Why should they? No one else had such a system. German radar developed out of German Navy attempts for using radar for fire control going back to 1932. Despite impressive radar sets and trials from 1934-1936 onwards (including lobe switching and blind fire) Deployment of series produced Seetakt and Freya didn't begin till 1938 in part because Freya radars had operate over ground clutter. not the north sea, thereby compelling a more difficult high frequency technology to be developed. I counted 12 Freyas in service protecting German borders during the Battle of France, it could by 9 it could be 22. They were developed out of tactical needs and integrated within the existing air reporting service hence the Luftwaffe hadn't organically progressed to evolving them into a more integrated system yet.
Nevertheless German Signals Intelligence worked out what was happening regarding centralised control of British fighters even if a bad report that assumed that RAF fighters were locally controlled undermined them for a while.
The British were keeping their production of Fighters secret, their deployment secret, their damage aircraft list secret. It's not like Goering can get a curtesy copy at on the end of week RAF fighter command report listing all fighter assets and dispositions of damaged aircraft, production rates, pilots on call.
Setting up a espionage network is nigh impossible in Britain since the only people likely to be slightly sympathetic to the Germans (only in the sense of avoiding a war), British Fascists, are also exceedingly loyal to Britain. That's the nature of nationalism.
This leaves the Germans with nothing but aerial intelligence, signal intelligence, interrogations of prisoners.
Here we can see again the lacking in the required equipment and procurement of the Luftwaffe. German aerial intelligence was based around excellent cameras mounted on bombers (maybe a Me 110) and in the face of radar and fighters like the Spitfire they were often shot down.
There had been warnings from within the Luftwaffe and German Army ( I forget the name of the commander) that whomever had the best reconnaissance would win any war.
When the Me 109 was adapted as a recon the pilot had to use a hand held camera. Basically too crude.
Then we have the issue of RAF losses. The serious problem of over claiming by aircraft and pilots (deliberate or more likely through confused observation) was an equal problem in all air forces. RAF, GAF, USAAF. All of them. The solution was tighter procedures, gun cameras and a factor to compensate. Not well understood at the time I think.
Destroying the RAF would need to be a battle of attrition. German forces are extremely poorly set up for this since a war of attrition always leads to the Germans loosing since they can be easily blockaded and starved of resources. The German armed forces are set up to win a two front war (Poland, France etc)
If destroying the RAF is the directive then bombing docks is a strategy to induce the RAF to defend them but it runs the risk of the RAF being wise to the ruse and harbouring their fighters (which the French and Polish Air forces did) and relying on docks out of reach (eg Liverpool) to take in shipping. If the British don't come up and fight then the Luftwaffe has to attack the RAF directly.
Again this is not 'bungling' since how are they too know how the RAF will react? The Germans tried both.
Unfortunately Goering's personality stands out here. He's highly intelligent, extremely sarcastic and this aspect means his own biases dominate decision making and analysis and biases his decisions for politics.
Still the problem is not German strategy. It is 1/ Lack of long range fighters, 2 lack of high speed photo reconnaissance and 3/ The preference for putting resources into Operation Barbarossa 1941 rather than SeaLion 40 or 41. Destroying the RAF would be a war of attrition that the Luftwaffe would need to be prepared to loose 2:1 since shot down Luftwaffe aircraft would crash in Britain and their pilots captured. This is why when unarmed Heinkel He 115 float planes with a red cross came to rescue down German pilots the British, under orders of Churchill, had them attacked.
If the Luftwaffe wanted to destroy the RAF it would need 1 different equipment and 2 the willingness to commit resources towards a war of attrition that would be initially expensive as it favoured the British.
Postponing things to 1941 wouldn't just have advantages to the LW. Without the pressure to produce planes and engines immediately, Rolls Royce and Supermarine could have a better Spitfire and maybe RR could have the Vulture in service by 1941. At the fall of France the RAF had 500 Spitfires and Hurricanes with pilots, given a year to recover and train that would be at least 1,000 with much more effective planes and pilots. Germany had stolen a march in armament production but was being out produced by mid 1940, the passage of time was not on their side.
You'll need to explain this logic to me? You are saying that had the Luftwaffe continued its campaign to destroy the RAF beyond
September 1940 Instead of preparing for Barbarossa) there
would be less pressure and The RAF would better engines and aircraft. I think it would be worse if anything.
The Spitfire broadly was produced in two airframe versions. The
Basic unit produced in massive number at Castle Bromwich consisting of the Mk 1/II/III/V/IX and the
advanced units consisting of the Mk VII(2 stage merlin),VIII(2 stage merlin), XII(single stage griffon), XIV(2 stage griffon) and the aborted Spitfire IV (single stage griffon, basically a Spitfire XII)
Here is the thing: the 'advanced' airframe was produced in small number throughout the war.
Without the pressure of production there is no need for the interim models, instead of MkV's and IX's the Luftwaffe would be facing MkIII's and MkVIII Spits, plane's that historically dominated the Me109 but 2 years earlier, there's even time to get the MkXII in large scale production, the FW190 wouldn't be the butcher bird, it'll be the one butchered.
Again, see above. If the RAF enters into a war of attrition over the British Isles it will be compelled to produce more basic spitfires.