Foreign perspectives on the Battle of Britain

[fastmongrel]

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.

As an agricultral nation relying on exporting its food products there was never ever under any circumstances going to be anything other than an imbalance of trade between the 2 nations. I am not old enough to remember anything about the discussions through the 60s but from what little I have read Britain went back on its agreements and promises with NZ because the government was so desperate to join the EEC that we basically gave away the family silver in return for being allowed to pay for European farmers to buy a new car and a holiday home in Spain.

I am not anti European Union but I am anti the European Union we are getting stuffed down our throats. The present structure of the EU is a Franco/German construct they got what they wanted and now it is blowing up in there faces, they designed it they can fix it but dont ask me to put my hand in my pocket to pay for it.

A European Economic Community designed to improve trade, allow free movement across the continent, set unified sensible standards for industry and commerce and help the former Warsaw Pact nations improve themselves. Yes a resounding Yes I am all for it.

A European Union I am sorry but I didnt vote for it or Angela Merkel and I cant vote her out so I dont want her or any other European leader running my country or my finances. If Britain is going to make any more mistakes (there will be plenty) I want the chance every few years to say sorry its time for a change. After all government is like a nappy full of sh*t and both need changing regulary.

 

[Readie]

As an agricultral nation relying on exporting its food products there was never ever under any circumstances going to be anything other than an imbalance of trade between the 2 nations. I am not old enough to remember anything about the discussions through the 60s but from what little I have read Britain went back on its agreements and promises with NZ because the government was so desperate to join the EEC that we basically gave away the family silver in return for being allowed to pay for European farmers to buy a new car and a holiday home in Spain.

I am not anti European Union but I am anti the European Union we are getting stuffed down our throats. The present structure of the EU is a Franco/German construct they got what they wanted and now it is blowing up in there faces, they designed it they can fix it but dont ask me to put my hand in my pocket to pay for it.

A European Economic Community designed to improve trade, allow free movement across the continent, set unified sensible standards for industry and commerce and help the former Warsaw Pact nations improve themselves. Yes a resounding Yes I am all for it.

A European Union I am sorry but I didnt vote for it or Angela Merkel and I cant vote her out so I dont want her or any other European leader running my country or my finances. If Britain is going to make any more mistakes (there will be plenty) I want the chance every few years to say sorry its time for a change. After all government is like a nappy full of sh*t and both need changing regulary.

Well said.
I voted 'No' in the Heath referendum before we joined the then EEC.
I was,and still am,happy to have a free trade association but, I most definitely do not to be part of a 'federal Europe'. I find the notion of Frau Merkel and the French paper tiger ordering us about to be unacceptable.
Its in all our interests that the former soviet bloc improvement themselves and avoid falling into chaos.
I could not really see what was so wrong with the pre 1973 trade agreements, including those with the Commonwealth countries. We have to be part of Europe as trading partners and also look for overseas markets...as Britain traditionally always has done.
John

 

[Edgar Brooks]

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..

One can only assume that these same "historians" make no mention of the 959 aircraft (half of them fighters,) lost by Britain, during our failure to make any contribution to the defence of France.

 

[Readie]

One can only assume that these same "historians" make no mention of the 959 aircraft (half of them fighters,) lost by Britain, during our failure to make any contribution to the defence of France.

Quite right Edgar.
I notice that the Italians are not mentioned either by history....
John

 

[FalkeEins]

One can only assume that these same "historians" make no mention of the 959 aircraft (half of them fighters,) lost by Britain, during our failure to make any contribution to the defence of France.

well, leaving aside the fact that some RAF types in France - Battles and Blenheims - were just good enough for German gunnery practice, some French historians focus on the fact that the Armée de l'Air effectively 'out-scored' the RAF in their defensive battle claiming a significant number of Luftwaffe aircraft downed in a much shorter space of time.

According to Peter Cornwell (page 529) the Luftwaffe lost no less than 3,278 aircrew killed (approx 1,500 a/c, so a high proportion of bombers) through to June 24, 1940 ( as compared to the RAF's 1,127 and the Armée de l'Air's 923 aircrew lost in the same period). These French historians have argued that such losses could not have failed to have played a part in the Battle of Britain in view of comparatively low German aircraft production rates.

 

[parsifal]

According to Peter Cornwell (page 529) the Luftwaffe lost no less than 3,278 aircrew killed (approx 1,500 a/c, so a high proportion of bombers) through to June 24, 1940 ( as compared to the RAF's 1,127 and the Armée de l'Air's 923 aircrew lost in the same period). These French historians have argued that such losses could not have failed to have played a part in the Battle of Britain in view of comparatively low German aircraft production rates.

Ive not seen Cornwells account, but the figures for LW losses during the BOF and the Low Countries seem way too high. According to the article "THE LUFTWAFFE AND ITS WAR OF ATTRITION, Lieutenant Colonel USAF P. L. C. Priest Air force university 1995, Aircraft Losses were far more modest.

"The Luftwaffe's high loss of aircraft was evident at the outset. In Poland, the Luftwaffe lost 285 aircraft in a campaign that was only four weeks long. In a matter of three weeks during May 1940 over Scandinavia and Western Europe, the Germans lost 20.2 % of their total force structure.

Luftwaffe aircraft losses from all causes between May and September 1940 was 57 percent of its initial strength. By the time the United Stated entered the war in December 1941, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two whole air forces. The following figures show the effects of attrition over a period of two years: in March 1940, the Luftwaffe had 3,692 combat aircraft; 3,451 in June 1941; and 2,872 in spring 1942. By the summer of 1942, the Luftwaffe was no stronger than it had been a year earlier. This trend was made that much more serious with Hitler's insistence on fighting a three-front war: the Western Front, the Eastern Front, and the Mediterranean".

If you do the math, the LW had a force of about 3500 committed to the invasion of the west (sources do vary....Im not trying to be 100% accurate) 20.2% of that figure is about 707 aircraft.

I believe my source is quoting combat losses only. Ive read elsewhere that LW from all auses (combat and noncombat, scrappings and the like) amounted to about 1500 aircraft in that 6 week period. No denying that the attrition rate for the LW, even during its "salad days" in France was very heavy...in fact the fighting in May 1940 saw the loss of LW at a higher daikly loss rate than at any time in 1940......however in total numbers the BoB remains the main reason for losses to the LW. In the period July through to October over Britain the LW lost around 1800 aircraft, which is a higher total than the losses sustained in France.

 

[Vincenzo]

Luftwaffe loss for aircraft a page 529 is 1814, french 1403 and british 1067, duch&belgian loss 550 aircraft and 87 men, italians 9 aircraft and 21 men


this are since september 1939 through 24 june '40, west alone

 

[Gixxerman]

As an agricultral nation........... both need changing regulary.

Well, this is neither the time nor the place for a debate about the EU.
I will just say that for every theoretical point you make about British independent decision making I can point to a reality which is one of an EU-wide de facto collective and mutual dependence and shared decision making.

I was,and still am,happy to have a free trade association

Yeah but we already tried that (EFTA) before joining the EEC/EU and it failed us, it did nothing to halt the decline in the British share of world trade (just as the Commonwealth had similarly failed us).

Anyways, I think we have to agree to disagree get back to WW2 aviation.

 

[pbfoot]

Well, this is neither the time nor the place for a debate about the EU.
I will just say that for every theoretical point you make about British independent decision making I can point to a reality which is one of an EU-wide de facto collective and mutual dependence and shared decision making.



Yeah but we already tried that (EFTA) before joining the EEC/EU and it failed us, it did nothing to halt the decline in the British share of world trade (just as the Commonwealth had similarly failed us).

Anyways, I think we have to agree to disagree get back to WW2 aviation.

Make better goods and the world will buy them ,

 

[parsifal]

Make better goods and the world will buy them ,

For example an oil seal that doesnt leak........

 

[Edgar Brooks]

For example an oil seal that doesnt leak........

The oil seals, on my 15-year-old Vauxhall Astra, haven't leaked in 10 years.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And this all has to do with the Battle of Britain because?

Lets get back on topic...

 

[fastmongrel]

The oil seals, on my 15-year-old Vauxhall Astra, haven't leaked in 10 years.

Another Astra man I have an 11 year old Astra 1.6 which I love to bits it has never let me down (touch wood) in 5 years of ownership. It recently spent some time on the ramp at work when we were quiet getting a full overhaul and tuneup it now goes a little bit faster than when it came out of the factory gate and handles like a dream. I am a little bit old to be a teenage hooligan but at least I have the car to be one if I want to.

Anyway back to the air did the Luftwaffe learn anything from the battle and apply it to the defence of Germany.

 

[Gixxerman]

One thing (on topic) that ought to have been cause for reconsideration would be the old 'the bomber will always get through' idea.
Up until the BoB the determined bomber attack had been thought unstoppable but the BoB ended with well directed fighter opposition forcing the German bombers to dump their bombs scatter running for home.
Obviously the switch to night attack was the primary result of this but even so that must have been seen to greatly diluted the bomber's power cried out for a technical solution to produce a night version of what had been done during the day.

The result of the BoB?
Britain decided night area bombing was the answer (clearly to try to counter the inaccuracy of night attacks) the USA went for self-suppoting massed daylight raiding.....but I wonder if the BoB changed the Russian attitude to bombing?
Maybe it's the usual case of the eastern war being less well known in the UK but Russian bombing attacks on German cities strategic targets does seem to be one element of the western war that was carried out much less in the east.
This strikes me as a little strange as Russia certainly did have a lot of interest in large bombers pre-war and I know about them having the Petlyakov Pe-8's.

Oh and Astra's?
Lovely car, totally reliable, I had a mk3 1.4 hatchback one myself a few years back.
Fine GM/Vauxhall/Opel engineering.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Anyway back to the air did the Luftwaffe learn anything from the battle and apply it to the defence of Germany.

Can't really say, but we (well, Leigh-Mallory) certainly didn't, when you see how many of our pilots were wasted over France.

 

[Readie]

Yeah but we already tried that (EFTA) before joining the EEC/EU and it failed us, it did nothing to halt the decline in the British share of world trade (just as the Commonwealth had similarly failed us).

We will have to agree to disagree. The Commonwealth have never failed us.
John

 

[Njaco]

Can't really say, but we (well, Leigh-Mallory) certainly didn't, when you see how many of our pilots were wasted over France.

Close-in support of bombers by fighters restrict the free-range support. The Allies learned that one.

 

[Juha]

Close-in support of bombers by fighters restrict the free-range support. The Allies learned that one.

IMHO Allied didn't learn that from BoB, if we look the escort systems used by RAF in 41-42 during the Circuses, most of the fighters were strictly tied with the bombers.

Juha

 

[Readie]

IMHO Allied didn't learn that from BoB, if we look the escort systems used by RAF in 41-42 during the Circuses, most of the fighters were strictly tied with the bombers.

Juha

Hello Juha,
The RAF learnt one expensive lesson, that is that pre war formations are not a good idea.
Pilots must have the room to manoeuvre rather than watching the plane next to them and not watching out for the enemy.
John

 

[parsifal]

IMHO Allied didn't learn that from BoB, if we look the escort systems used by RAF in 41-42 during the Circuses, most of the fighters were strictly tied with the bombers.

Juha

That 41-2 restriction was due mostly to having to deliberately place the sweeps at a tactical disdavantage to try and get the Luftwaffe to come up. The individual operational plans of course varied greatly from operation to operation, but if I were to generalise, it gnerally took the form of small groups of bobers, under close escort of most fighters in the group, followed by an "ambush group, either further behind, or in front, trying to trap and gain advantage over thye German interecptors. Sometimes it worked, often it did not, and IMO as time progressed, the germans got wise to RAF tricks and ruses.

In the first half of 1941, according to Foreman, the exchange rate wasnt too badly against the RAF In the second half it swung quite badly against the RAF.