i don't think the limitation was the absence of real heavy bomber in the luftwaffe in BoB, at time He 111 was a "heavy bomber", the limitation was in the range of fighters and also imho in their numbers need more fighters with more pilots
Foreign perspectives on the Battle of Britain
- Thread starter fastmongrel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The invasion of Britain has been discussed elsewhere here.It was never a viable option for the Wermacht in 1940 and I don't think anyone has suggested that it was. Forcing Britain into some kind of compromise peace,on terms favourable to Germany,certainly was a possibility. They just had to win the BoB. It didn't happen,we won it. This enabled us to,as Readie eloquently says above,keep punching and dodging.
It wasn't about winning a war or even a battle,it was about staying in the war and buying time. No wonder Churchill "slept the sleep of the saved" after the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Cheers
Steve
It wasn't about winning a war or even a battle,it was about staying in the war and buying time. No wonder Churchill "slept the sleep of the saved" after the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
This is correct.
While the He 111 might not be a "heavy" bomber in the way it "heavy" bomber would soon be come known the Luftwaffe was able to bomb Belfast, Ireland which should be an indication that their bombers had all the range needed for England ( Russia being a different story). Second is that without a major change in German production every 4 engine bomber would come at the cost of two He 111s so actual tonnage of bombs dropped per week or month isn't going to change much. Third is that fact that a 4 engine bomber available in numbers in the Summer of 1940 is not going to have the capabilities of a 4 engine bomber of 1942/3. Engines are going to be down 80% or so in power. defensive armament is going to be more limited and so on. Saying the Germans "lost" the BoB because they didn't have 1942/3 bombers in 1940 is like saying they "lost" because they didn't have Bf 109Gs with drop tanks in 1940.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Spain's choice to remain neutral was due to the Battle Of Britain.
To say Britain was defeated in 1940 is wrong....as Molotov said to Ribbentrop Nov 13 1940 when he visited Berlin....if Britain is finished why are we in a bomb shelter and whose are those bombs falling? Molotov didn't believe Germany and this was when it was an ally.
To say Britain was defeated in 1940 is wrong....as Molotov said to Ribbentrop Nov 13 1940 when he visited Berlin....if Britain is finished why are we in a bomb shelter and whose are those bombs falling? Molotov didn't believe Germany and this was when it was an ally.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Because England was NEVER defeated. Germany may have won some battles but she didn't win the war. Norway was invaded and occupied, France was defeated and occuppied, Greece was invaded and occuppied, Crete was invaded and occuppied - England may have lost some battles but she was never occupied. She hung around and even punched back until the situation was better.
Oh, and Malta was a defeat for Germany. Sometimes victories aren't very pretty.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
This is exactly why the BoB memorial flight and especially the Spitfire are so celebrated in Britain.
The Spitfire was adopted as the symbol of victory and national courage ion the face of huge adversity.
Long may she fly
John
As an Englishman,and whilst appreciating the sentiment,I think it's only fair to make that "Britain and her allies"
The Scots are causing enough trouble as it is
Cheers
Steve
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
As an Englishman,and whilst appreciating the sentiment,I think it's only fair to make that "Britain and her allies"
The Scots are causing enough trouble as it is
Cheers
Steve
'England' and 'Englishman' is more common that 'British' in Europe and the world to describe us Steve.
Its a term of endearment...like 'pom' and 'roast beef'.
After all we have, er, terms of endearment of them too...
Are the Scots going it alone?
I have one answer to them...'goodbye'
I jest of course 8)
John
parsifal
Colonel
The multi national flavour of the BoB is one area i would stongly advocate. it was a multi national effort, and should be remembered as such. not to belittle the efforts of the RAF....that was a British outfit.....but there were many nationalities fighting for Britain at that time.
buffnut453
Captain
Entirely agree. Britain in general, and the RAF in particular, provided the framework for success in the BoB but it was very much a team effort across Britain, the Commonwealth and Empire, and other peoples who sought to halt the expansion of Fascism.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
At the end of the film "The Battle of Britain," while the final credits roll, there's a list of all the nationalities that took part, and how many of them did not survive; it makes sobering reading.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
The RAF was never a just a British outfit, I agree that point needs reinforcing. As Edgar says the list of nationalities that joined the RAF and fought is humbling and we should never forget them.
We must also remember the other armed forces that benefited from the volunteers in the early days of WW2.
One point that grieves me the most in the modern world is that a lot of these loyalties have been overlooked.
John
We must also remember the other armed forces that benefited from the volunteers in the early days of WW2.
One point that grieves me the most in the modern world is that a lot of these loyalties have been overlooked.
John
- Thread starter
- #73
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I agree I know a lot of people in New Zealand still feel bitterness at the way Britain dumped them when we joined the EEC. It was a big kick in the teeth for a country whose economy was based on agriculture to lose its main market vitually overnight. I can still remember how gorgeous NZ lamb disappeared from the butchers to be replaced with some stringy muck good only for dog food.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Duplicate d'oh
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I couldn't agree with you more.
Perfidious Albion ?
People don't forget.
The biggest irony is the destruction of the traditional British fruit trees like Discovery to be replaced with imported tasteless, watery EU crap.
John
Last edited:
FalkeEins
Senior Airman
the original poster asked for 'foreign' perspectives. Here's a common German view which
regards the British preoccupation with the significance of the BoB as 'disproportionate'. Interview with veteran JG 2/JG 53 Gkr. Jules Meimberg in the British Guardian newspaper..
Hitler's pilots shoot down Battle of Britain 'myth' | UK news | The Observer
And in France the British are criticised by some historians for not acknowledging the contribution of the "1,000 victories" supposedly returned by French fighter pilots during the Battle of France in weakening the Luftwaffe's subsequent offensive capabilities over England..
regards the British preoccupation with the significance of the BoB as 'disproportionate'. Interview with veteran JG 2/JG 53 Gkr. Jules Meimberg in the British Guardian newspaper..
Hitler's pilots shoot down Battle of Britain 'myth' | UK news | The Observer
And in France the British are criticised by some historians for not acknowledging the contribution of the "1,000 victories" supposedly returned by French fighter pilots during the Battle of France in weakening the Luftwaffe's subsequent offensive capabilities over England..
- Thread starter
- #77
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Contemporary perspectives were what I was after, how did other airforces read the battle and what if anything did they learn and put into practice. From a very interesting link posted by Glider I have learnt that the Japanese had some very surprising things to say and were generally not very complimentary to there Axis allies.
I read that article when it came out in the paper and no offense intended to a veteran but it came across as quite petty. Its still a valid opinion but does come across as a bit like a football managers post match "we didnt lose we came second" TV interview.
As to the French claiming there sacrifice was ignored that is so not true it is acknowledged in lots of histories even the film the Battle of Britain starts with the combat in France. Not a lot is known about the air battle over France even in France there isnt a lot of writing about it. It seems a bit harsh for a French historian to criticise foreign historians for not writing the history when little has been written and what little has been written has not been translated.
I read that article when it came out in the paper and no offense intended to a veteran but it came across as quite petty. Its still a valid opinion but does come across as a bit like a football managers post match "we didnt lose we came second" TV interview.
As to the French claiming there sacrifice was ignored that is so not true it is acknowledged in lots of histories even the film the Battle of Britain starts with the combat in France. Not a lot is known about the air battle over France even in France there isnt a lot of writing about it. It seems a bit harsh for a French historian to criticise foreign historians for not writing the history when little has been written and what little has been written has not been translated.
Last edited:
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
Ooops double post.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
I have read that the Germans war-gamed the possibilities and concluded they could never have won.
I am reluctant to accept at face value some of the later claims that the BoB was all about politics, a diversion never serious.
I can't believe the Luftwaffe would be employed that way to suffer the serious losses they did just to dupe Stalin.
fastmongrel
The problem New Zealand had was that they loved to sell us their stuff but bought so little of ours in return.
Besides, after spending the best part of 15yrs trying to get into the EEC/EU nobody can seriously say this was a surprise something that happened over-night.
parsifal
Colonel
Post war it became apparent that the germans were unable to mount an effective invasion. That wasnt apparent at the time, however.
Moreover, if the germans had somehow managed to drive the RAF from the skies of South East England, a whole range of possibilitiesw arises that makes the survival of Britain as a viable opponent in the war very problematic, in fact I would say doubtful. The fact that this proved quite beyond the capabilities of the LW is again applying wisdom after the fact. Nobody knew at the time that winning air supremacy would be so difficult for the germans. The LW proved unable to win even air superiority, let alone air supremacy and therein lies your victory. If they had won air superiority things would have become difficult for the British. if they had won air supremacy, things would have become impossible, and under those circumstances invasion becomes a possibility.
In the 1974 (I think) certain distinguishewd veterans (including Adolph Galland) wargamed the battle. Initially it was a flop, the germans got nowhere. So the rules of engagement were changed. Firstly it was assumed that the Germans had won just local air superiority....under these circumstances the simulated invasion was still a failure after a few days. Finally, it was assumed the germans had won total air supremacy (and the RN had pullled right back to bases in Northern Britain). Under these circumstances the Germans got assure, and captured most of southern England. There was then robust discussion as to whether that would be enough to induce a negotiated surrender from the British. Given that the stated position of the British was that they would never negotiate and never surrender, even if the whole of Britain were occupied (they would continue to fight as an exile in Canada) it is probably unrealistic to assume total victory from a total aerial victory in 1940. But it is plausible to argue an invasion was possible under the most absolutely favourable result for Germany in the air battle.
Under any other outcome in the air battle, and the invasion plan appears to be unworkable
Moreover, if the germans had somehow managed to drive the RAF from the skies of South East England, a whole range of possibilitiesw arises that makes the survival of Britain as a viable opponent in the war very problematic, in fact I would say doubtful. The fact that this proved quite beyond the capabilities of the LW is again applying wisdom after the fact. Nobody knew at the time that winning air supremacy would be so difficult for the germans. The LW proved unable to win even air superiority, let alone air supremacy and therein lies your victory. If they had won air superiority things would have become difficult for the British. if they had won air supremacy, things would have become impossible, and under those circumstances invasion becomes a possibility.
In the 1974 (I think) certain distinguishewd veterans (including Adolph Galland) wargamed the battle. Initially it was a flop, the germans got nowhere. So the rules of engagement were changed. Firstly it was assumed that the Germans had won just local air superiority....under these circumstances the simulated invasion was still a failure after a few days. Finally, it was assumed the germans had won total air supremacy (and the RN had pullled right back to bases in Northern Britain). Under these circumstances the Germans got assure, and captured most of southern England. There was then robust discussion as to whether that would be enough to induce a negotiated surrender from the British. Given that the stated position of the British was that they would never negotiate and never surrender, even if the whole of Britain were occupied (they would continue to fight as an exile in Canada) it is probably unrealistic to assume total victory from a total aerial victory in 1940. But it is plausible to argue an invasion was possible under the most absolutely favourable result for Germany in the air battle.
Under any other outcome in the air battle, and the invasion plan appears to be unworkable
