Battle of Britain was won at sea. Discuss [Archive]

strek

24th Aug 2006, 06:33

Good Morning All,
From this morning's DT:
The Battle of Britain was not won by the RAF but by the Royal Navy, military historians have concluded, provoking outrage among the war's surviving fighter pilots.
Challenging the "myth" that Spitfires and Hurricanes held off the German invaders in 1940, the monthly magazine History Today has concluded that it was the might of the Navy that stood between Britain and Nazi occupation.
Spitfires and Hurricanes have previously been held responsible for preventing a German invasion
The view is backed by three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College teaching the future admirals, generals and air marshals.
They contend that the sheer numbers of destroyers and battleships in the Channel would have obliterated any invasion fleet even if the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain.
The idea that a "handful of heroes saved these islands from invasion" was nothing more than a "perpetuation of a glorious myth," the article suggests.
"Many still prefer to believe that in the course of that summer a few hundred outnumbered young men so outfought a superior enemy as solely to prevent a certain invasion of Britain. Almost none of which is true," reports Brian James, the author.
Dr Andrew Gordon, the head of maritime history at the staff college, said it was "hogwash" to suggest that Germany failed to invade in 1940 "because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command".
"The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The Navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet - destroyers' speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash."
Even if the RAF had been defeated the fleet would still have been able to defeat any invasion because fast ships at sea could easily manoeuvre and "were pretty safe from air attack".
While admitting it was an "extremely sensitive subject", Dr Christina Goulter, the air warfare historian, supported the argument. "While it would be wrong to deny the contribution of Fighter Command, I agree largely that it was the Navy that held the Germans from invading," she said.
"As the German general Jodl put it, so long as the British Navy existed, an invasion would be to send 'my troops into a mincing machine'." Any challenge to the long-held theory that the 2,600 pilots of Fighter Command defeated the might of Germany would be subject to "more than a modicum of hostility", she added.
The Battle of Britain was "a sacrosanct event" for the RAF, like Waterloo for the Army and Trafalgar for the Navy.
It inspired Churchill to say: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Although six destroyers were lost during the evacuation of Dunkirk in May 1940 this was due to them being stationary as they picked up troops.
Tackling capital ships would have been an even greater task because at the time the Luftwaffe, unlike the Japanese during the destruction of the fleet at Singapore, did not have armour-piercing bombs, the article says.
It has been argued that German minefields strung across the Dover Straits would have prevented the Home Fleet, based at Scapa Flow, from destroying slow troop barges.
But Dr Gordon disputed this saying that Britain had 52 minesweepers and 16 minesweeping trawlers arrayed against four German minelayers.
The disparity between the navies was huge with Britain having 36 destroyers close by and a similar number two days away. The Navy also had five capital ships on hand, whereas the Kriegsmarine had lost or had damaged their battleships.
"Anyway, in an emergency, the Royal Navy steams straight through minefields as they did when pursuing the Scharnhorst," Dr Gordon said. "They have a drill, following line astern. 'Each ship can sweep one mine' is the rather grim joke."
Can you imagine the RN's targets? An invasion fleet of Rhine barges, moving at about two knots over the water, with a freeboard of a few feet. . . an absolute field day for our navy. So that was the nightmare for the German navy. They knew it just couldn't happen."
Prof Gary Sheffield, the JSCSC's leading land warfare historian, said while some Germans might have got ashore it would have been near impossible for them to be re-supplied with the Navy so close by.
The article also argues that while the RAF had 644 fighters to the Luftwaffe's 725 at the beginning of the battle by October 1940 Britain was far out-producing the enemy.
It also said that after the defeat in France in early 1940 it was vital for Britain to have a victory to reassure the public it was winning the war and the RAF fighter pilots were an obvious choice. "In 1940, the total acceptance of the story's simple broad-brush strokes was very necessary," the historian Richard Overy said.
Dr Gordon added: "The RAF's was a substitute victory - a substitute for the certain victory over Sealion, had the Germans been mad enough to attempt invasion."
According to Radio 4 there are some mighty pi*sed off Crabs this morning!:E

Mr C Hinecap

24th Aug 2006, 06:53

Damnit - you beat me to it! I've just given this a quick read and it will slide into banter for the fishy types soon enough. It seems an odd point -Tcherman Navy can't go in, so they tried to get 'over top' and the BofB happened. We won, end of story.
I doubt the current RN would deter the average pedallo never mind an invading navy ;)

ORAC

24th Aug 2006, 06:57

It may well be true that an invasion fleet would have been massacred as minefields would not have protected it. However, the Germans who planned it believed it would, so the present opinion of the historians is interesting, but irrelevant. Certainly Raeder believed, at the time, that it could succeed.

Hitler laid down 4 preconditions for Operation Sealion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion), the first being being that the RAFwas to be:

beaten down in its morale and in fact, that it can no longer display any appreciable aggressive force in opposition to the German crossing".

Having fallen at that first hurdle, the rest is superfluous and no more than guesswork.

Wig Wag

24th Aug 2006, 07:18

Surely the Battle of Britain was about the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority over the Channel? I.e. the Germans could have bombed the Navy into submission whilst protecting the invasion barges?

phil gollin

24th Aug 2006, 07:23

Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain) was never seriously implemented and if whatever plan might have been implemented would have been slaughtered by the Royal Navy with the remnants of the german army that did land being wiped out relatively easily.

The "Battle of Britain" is the name given to the air campaign and was essentially an aerial victory.

Apples and oranges

orca

24th Aug 2006, 07:29

Sounds like jointery to me. Kreigsmarine unwilling to mix it with RN until they have air cover, Luftwaffe unable to over come raf. So i quite agree with the posts above, it matters not which way you look at it the presence of the RN coupled with the utter heroism of the light blue plus coalition kept them at bay.....

......but just to take us down a tangent. One would hope that no matter how battered you were you would never 'submit' if your homeland was at stake. The Luftwaffe would have had to defeat the RN utterly....just my opinion....

Widger

24th Aug 2006, 07:41

I do not like this article for several reasons. It is hypothesis and the RN did not have to get involved in sinking an invasion fleet. It also misses the point that many of the squadrons that took part in the Battle of Britain were Fleet Air Arm and many FAA pilots were also seconded to RAF squadrons. It was a joint effort with predominantly RAF Officers and SNCOs supported in large numbers by Polish, Czech, FAA, French and a whole host of other crews.One glance at the leader boards in RAF Uxbridge and Bentley Priory tells the story. Air Cdre Brothers comments are correct, in that Radar was the most important element but he does not mention that the system of Groups within their bunkers was also a significant factor.The paper has obviously been taken out of context and edited for consumption by the public.Not often I side with the crabs!

dakkg651

24th Aug 2006, 07:42

So what happened to the navy at Crete without air cover? I believe they lost almost a dozen highly manoevrable destroyers including Mountbattens' HMS Kelly.

Don't mention the Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk by little men with pebble glasses either.

The JU87 force had been withdrawn from the battle by 18th August and was largely up to strength. They proved pretty formidable later in the Med.

Didn't the Germans have a few U Boats as well?

The navy certainly played their part well but if the Luftwaffe had gained air superiority over the channel and south coast then I think stopping an invasion fleet would have been quite a struggle.

I think the unsung heroes of the battle were Bomber and Coastal Commands who did a fine job with inferior equipment. Their losses in aircrew were far greater than in Fighter Command.

Why do so called historians who weren't even born at the time keep trying to question our military acievements? Maybe they think it sell more books!

orca

24th Aug 2006, 07:54

I think we may be looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. WW2 is littered with examples of how navies got on without air cover (very badly). Norway, Crete, Midway, Leyte Gulf....it goes on.

I do not doubt that the RN wasn't very optimistic about repulsing an invasion fleet, even less if it didn't have air cover.

But the point is that the Kriegsmarine weren't even prepared to give it a go until the Luftwaffe had had removed the RAF, and supporting allies + other services, from the equation. Which they never managed to do because of what our chaps in mainly light blue uniforms managed, whatever command they came from.

As was pointed out above. RAF(+some help) won the Battle of Britain. Germans packed up. Full stop. Everything else is conjecture.

South Bound

24th Aug 2006, 08:00

It is probably because there are only so many ways to analyse the great battles in our history, and if the historians want to be seen to be bright and clever, they have to challenge the accepted and be controversial. Anyone who has sat in on their lectures will know that they are as bright as very bright things, but there are no right or wrong answers, just opinions. Hence they can say what they like, back it up with some examples and, voila, they are in the Telegraph!!! Well done chaps.

I strongly disagree that the Luftwaffe's lack of AP bombs would have made the RN safe from air attack and, IMHO, if the attritional BoB had gone the other way, attentions would have turned to the RN. The Germans really were quite ingenious at inventing things for a specific purpose - do you really think they wouldn't have come up with a ship-killer? Even enough conventional bombs would have done the trick.

Anyway, as Orca said, the switching off of Sealion was Jointery in action. RAF denied Air Superiority to the Luftwaffe so that the RN remained capable of destroying the invasion forces leaving the Army to get on with prepping for the worst...poetry!

Fairly dull argument really, but at least they have achieved their aim, got themselves published and talked about!

ORAC

24th Aug 2006, 08:10

strongly disagree that the Luftwaffe's lack of AP bombs would have made the RN safe from air attack Not quite sure where the idea that the Luftwaffe were short of AP came from any way. The Stuka could carry a 1400Kg AP bomb on the centreline rack and used lots of them attacking forts on the Maginot Line. They also used them to great effect against the RN at Narvik, sinking one crusier and damaging 2 others, as well as a battleship, before the fleet withdrew out of range.

Widger

24th Aug 2006, 08:10

The trouble with these historians is, that if you propose an alternative to their line of thinking, they are very inflexible, narrow minded and mark you down! Lesson dearly learnt, agree with everything they say, argue a case but make sure that your conclusion is the same as theirs. Flattery not logic!

GeeRam

24th Aug 2006, 08:11

The Battle of Britain was not won by the RAF but by the Royal Navy, military historians have concluded

Yeah right, how many military historians?

The view is backed by three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College teaching the future admirals, generals and air marshals.

God help the military of the future then............:ugh:

Dr Andrew Gordon, the head of maritime history at the staff college, said it was "hogwash" to suggest that Germany failed to invade in 1940 "because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command".

:rolleyes:

While admitting it was an "extremely sensitive subject", Dr Christina Goulter, the air warfare historian, supported the argument.

Air warfare historian...........a lumpy jumper..........good grief:{

What a bunch of revisonist twaddle.

Simple fact is the Wehrmacht hadn't been designed for sea borne invasion warfare, and Germany didn't have a 100% committed desire to invade.
To do so it would have to have control of the air first to give it a chance of having a largely unhindered crack at destroying as much of the RN as possible, before coming across the channel.

Cue quote from BofB film......
"The last little corporal that tried it came a cropper...."

In that they failed at the first hurdle to defeat the RAF to gain that control of the skies, due to skill, bravery, radar, and a not inconsiderable slice of good luck, as well as bad tactics on the Germans part...........then how anyone can say it was the RN that won the BofB really defies belief.....:*

airborne_artist

24th Aug 2006, 08:19

Personally I think it was the English Channel that won the BoB. If it hadn't been for the 23 miles of briny stuff then Fritz would have carried straight on (OK, turned R slightly) at Dunkirk, RAF or no RAF, RN or no RN.

Let's hear it for contiental drift :ok:

ORAC

24th Aug 2006, 08:26

Continental drift? I think you are confused, there is no drift between the UK and the continent. The North Sea and Channel were once above sea level and dry land however, until the sea level rose. So lets hear it for Global Warming.... :D :D

Hirsutesme

24th Aug 2006, 08:39

What utter twaddle, take a hypothesis, stretch facts, make assumptions and conceptual leaps, hey presto, name in paper.

No mention of the packs of u boats which caused such huge carnage amongst the merchant.

Conan The Barber

24th Aug 2006, 08:50

So lets hear it for Global Warming.... :D :D

I quite agree, Oh great bore. Let the oceans rise and Britain a seabed make. And all shall rejoice.

dakkg651

24th Aug 2006, 08:54

Seems like the done thing nowadays is to change history to suit either the latest 'clever' theory or the non PC brigade.

I read, recently, that the 'History of Europe', commisioned by Euromadness inc, is being written by a French historian and will make very little mention of parts of Europe being invaded last century.

I bet there will be a large section about the Normans - but nothing about the Royal Navy sinking (again) a certain Vichy fleet at Oran.

Lastly. The name of Gibson's dog was definitely Fido. It says so in the film and films can't lie - can they?

South Bound

24th Aug 2006, 09:00

I hear that the fight-to-the-last-man battles in defence of Paris and the other major cities in France will be covered in great detail....

Postman Plod

24th Aug 2006, 09:29

How about a response to the Telegraph article with a PPRuNe letter submission based on the responses so far? What better than an idividual response than a group response from the professionals? :}

Champagne Anyone?

24th Aug 2006, 09:33

This just a ploy by the spams to re-write history so that when they do the re-make of the BoB film, they are historically correct.... or should that be hysterically correct!

Chin chin.....

Gainesy

24th Aug 2006, 09:35

three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College

Sack the pratts.:mad:

ORAC

24th Aug 2006, 09:35

Anyway, I thought it was won on the playing fields at Eton......

GasFitter

24th Aug 2006, 10:08

Brian James ... get noticed ... be controversial ... name in papers ... well done ... meanwhile, back in the real world!
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

24th Aug 2006, 10:27

We live in an age that thrives on sensationalism and "headline grabbing". If a historian wants fame and fortune, it is now so simple; take a few hard facts and change the emphasis. David Irving had a go at it and, unfortunately for him, is now in the slammer.

General Jodel is hardly a good authority on tactical considerations for SEALION. Like most brown-jobs, whatever their flag, Naval capability would be a mystery to him, eclipsed only by his ignorance of air warfare.

A current argument is that air superiority didn't prevent the invasion of Crete or Norway. The distance that aircraft had to fly is quietly dismissed. Luftwaffe bombers flying from forward aerodromes in France would have been more than a distraction for any RN surface ship.

If the new debate gives long overdue credit to Admls Somerville and Cunningham, though, it can't all be bad.

scribbler614

24th Aug 2006, 10:46

You can make a good argument for the 'RN the real deterrent' stuff, but only if you ask a very, very narrow question - could Operation Sealion have succeeded on the planned date of Sept 15, 1940, as things stood?
This has been 'wargamed' at Sandhurst at least three times, and the answer always comes out the same: No.
German side gains beacheads, but not in sufficient numbers. Main RN home fleet comes charging down from Scapa Floe. No resupply or reinforcement by sea. Germans make headway but don't reach London and forced to surrender after a few days.
It's also true that Wermacht and German Navy had little faith in Op Sealion plans, which were pretty ropey, and were only too happy to blame Goering's Luftwaffe when things didn't work out that summer.
But as any fule kno the real question is much wider. What happens if Lufwaffe win, destroy Fighter Command as a coherent force, and achieve air supremacy? These learned historians ignore the wider point.
Luftwaffe, untroubled by defeated RAF, are free to flatten all RN shore facilities along with swathes of London by day through the autumn. Dive bombers (no fighters to worry about) pick off warships at leisure.
Royal Navy may be mighty, but they can't stop German bombers and it's highly likely Britain sues for peace well before end of 1940. Germans occupy Blighty, defeat Russia, and we're all eating sauerkraut to this day.
In short, The Few fully deserve their place in history.

Lafyar Cokov

24th Aug 2006, 11:16

I thought it was Susannah York's stockings that won the Battle of Britian.....:}

tablet_eraser

24th Aug 2006, 12:25

...allegedly.
From today's Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UM2HMFO5MGIPBQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/24/nbattle24.xml).
Discuss.

lsh

24th Aug 2006, 12:25

Damn, that means that all those years/lives gaining air superiority over Europe were wasted! Our armies could have just sailed across and invaded anytime, at their leisure!

foldingwings

24th Aug 2006, 12:32

T-E

Did you have to?

Foldy

bad livin'

24th Aug 2006, 12:39

foldingwings

24th Aug 2006, 12:39

Stop, Stop, Stop!

This is an academic debate spawned by a 'naval expert' at KCL (Shriv) supported by CG (an air expert at KCL(Shriv) whose academic focus is on the Battle of the Atlantic - more boats involved).

Personally, I believe Churchill "This was their Finest Hour" and those remaining of 'The Few' who were there (KCL weren't; and they are known for employing revisionists and 'deniers')!

Foldy

PS. Apologies if I have repeated a previous thread but I couldn't be ar$ed to trawl through all the (probable) history rewriting bollox of the previous 2 pages!

foldingwings

24th Aug 2006, 12:43

I think it's fair to suppose that any large scale invastion was going to rely enormously on marine logistical support...so although the initial spearhead element might (in some small number) have made it ashore via parachute, the fleet would have given the following hordes, their supply line and vehicles a very unpleasant time in the channel.

And so, they would have won the Battle of the Channel! The Battle of Britain was a battle in the air (difficult for RN boats to achieve) the Battle for Britain might have been a different issue altogether!

Foldy

bad livin'

24th Aug 2006, 12:45

foldingwings

24th Aug 2006, 12:55

Yes, RN SHIPS might have had a hard time getting airborne, but RN BOATS, or submarines, would have struggled even harder...
Would you then argue that the RAF triumphed and triumphed mightily in a "A Battle of Britain"?

Aren't we on the same side? I was being antagonistic by using 'boats'!

Frankly, history is history (see my point on the other thread that deals with this) and the revisionist/denier view of a bl**dy academic has got sod all to add to the debate in 2006!

They'll next be telling me that Culloden was a battle between Scotland and England! (it wasn't!)

Mods: Can we merge these 2 threads please?

bad livin'

24th Aug 2006, 12:59

Big Up the Andrew!

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

24th Aug 2006, 13:10

Stop, Stop, Stop!

(KCL weren't; and they are known for employing revisionists and 'deniers")

Hell! I thought we were back to Susannah York's stockings.

Davaar

24th Aug 2006, 13:22

The name of Gibson's dog was definitely Fido. It says so in the film and films can't lie - can they?

Not in the movie I saw here a few weeks ago. It was a different word altogether, and just in case you missed it first time around, that OTHER WORD was repeated many times. "Digger", or something Australian like that.

LFFC

24th Aug 2006, 13:25

Maybe I should have a go at this re-writing of history game - I might even make it onto the staff at Shriv!

"Taranto, and the night of November 11th - 12th, 1940, should be remembered for ever as having shown once and for all that in Joint Force Harrier the Navy borrows its most devastating weapon."

With apologies to: Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

;) OK, I'll get me coat!

LowObservable

24th Aug 2006, 13:26

This does all smack of academic willy-waving and the desire to gin up controversy, headlines, book sales and grants.
What's new here?
Peter Fleming wrote Operation Sealion decades ago and concluded that with the plans in place - which appeared to regard an invasion as a glorified river-crossing exercise - Sealion would not have delivered and sustained a force large enough to win. I don't think that there is anything controversial about that.
On the other hand, the ground-pounders had made it clear to Hitler that the defeat of the RAF was a precondition for trying Sealion, and that was accepted as official policy. It was, in the German view, a significant factor. You can argue in 2006 that Sealion would have failed anyway, but that's different.
The defeat of the RAF - that is, if the remnants had been pulled back out of bomber range - might not have led to an invasion... that much is true. But given what we now know about the shakiness of Churchill's support and the number of people who supported a negotiated peace, a third perceived defeat - after Norway and France - might well have seen Winnie pushed out and who knows what happen. That gets deep into the might-have-been area, but there is enough to suggest that the Battle of Britain was integral to the May-to-September period in which Britain resolved to fight it out and in which Roosevelt solidified his support for the war.

Fortyodd2

24th Aug 2006, 13:29

"three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College...."

Should stick to teaching it rather than trying to re-write it!

merman

24th Aug 2006, 13:37

With the RAF(+ Other helpers) on this one.
Hitler hoped that Britain would quietly go away after the fall of France, but when that didn't happen tried to bomb us into submission. If Germany had won the Battle of Britain, I think the RN may have struggled under the bombs of the Luftwaffe and may not have been able to prevent an invasion fleet from coming across the channel. However, they would likely have inflicted a fair amount of damage; casualties that Hitler just couldn't afford. Why? Because he was always going for Russia. If he didn't, Stalin would have eventually attacked him anyway - more so if he he'd weakened his forces trying to cross the channel. Op Sealion was designed to remove the British threat but not at the expense of the upcoming campaigns in the East. In the end he had to commit forces to Greece/Albania/Crete because of Mussolini's failure in these theatres.
So the fact that the Battle of Britain was won in the air meant that Op Sealion was a non starter. Take nothing away from those who helped bring this about, be they Radar operators/Ground Crew/Aircrew/Flak gunners/etc. It was a battle that needed to be won to give us a chance of survival and those that participated should not now have some 'armchair warrior' belittling their sacrifices that saved this country.

MM

dakkg651

24th Aug 2006, 14:03

Here here. Well said.

doubledolphins

24th Aug 2006, 14:17

Read the original article guys! I just have. It's in History Today, September's edition. It has been written with reference to the staff at JSSC and they are all in broad agreement. So all you light blue, if you want to attain high rank will have to push this line! (Like hell!)

I do have a couple of problems with it . Dr Gordon, the navy man, says that if needed RN ships could steam through a mine field in "Line Astern" and that "All ships can sweep one mine". Well, Doctor, Ships proceed in Line Ahead (Form. One) and the saying is "All ships can be a mine sweeper once".

If he can get that wrong, how should we regard the rest of it?

Yours, the normally very One Eyed and exceedingly Dark Blue, DD

foldingwings

24th Aug 2006, 14:23

DD,

Nicely put and well discredited!

Now we need someone (dark blue) to send a letter to that effect to the Telegraph and all others running this bullsh*t!

Foldy

BEagle

24th Aug 2006, 14:30

Vulnerability of the German Navy to land-based bombers? Oh really?
The infamous Channel Dash (for which the daring of the Kriegsmarine has to be admired):

The Channel Dash was one of those moments when a lack of vigilance by the British and good planning by the Germans led to a humiliating moment in the Second World War.

The German battleships the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau went to Brest, where they were joined by the Prinz Eugen after the sinking of the Bismarck at the end of May 1941. Holed up in the harbour, they presented a huge threat to Allied shipping. British bombers attacked them several times and there was a torpedo raid on Brest. More than 100 British aircraft were lost during these attacks.

The German operation to get the ships out was simple. At about midnight on 11 February, in appalling weather, they simply sailed out with an escort of destroyers and motor torpedo boats and with the Luftwaffe providing air cover. They were not spotted at first and by mid morning, after sailing for 12 hours, the 21 ships had reached the Straits of Dover unchallenged. By the time Bomber Command had carried out its first attacks, it was early afternoon and the German ships were through the Straits of Dover. RAF planes were joined by Fleet Air Arm Swordfish aircraft and then by a cruiser, destroyers and motor torpedo boats.

The 16th Destroyer Flotilla, including the small, elderly, slow and lightly armed HMS Worcester then set off from Harwich for the River Maas area to meet the German flotilla. The Worcester was badly hit. Twenty-seven people were killed and 60 injured. The above-deck structure of the ship was badly damaged and two of the three boilers were put out of action. Despite the boiler rooms being flooded, the engine room team eventually managed to make repairs and get up steam and the ship limped back to Harwich, taking 16 hours to return. At the same moment the German flotilla was arriving at its home ports.

Serious questions had to be asked of British communications and reconnaissance systems and their obsession with secrecy. How had they missed the German ships for so long when they were virtually under their noses? The British had not expected a daylight attempt and were unprepared. Even then, though, the response was slow and ineffective. Six hundred British aircraft attacked the German fleet without success. Of these, 49 aircraft were lost, including all 6 torpedo-carrying Swordfish from Manston which bravely attacked against massive opposition. Their commander, Lieutenant-Commander Eugene Esmonde, was awarded the Victoria Cross.

The Times the next day said that the German escape was the biggest affront to British sea power since 1666.

With acknowledgements to the BBC

doubledolphins

24th Aug 2006, 14:35

Dear Foldy,
Sadly, I can't as still serving. Hope they get the message though. I'm geting my DVD of the film out this evening (See other thread).

Dear BEagle,

The string bags were lost because they had no fighter top cover.It is said that the Station Commander of Manston stood at the salute by the runway with tears in his eyes as they launched, but this is not the issue here. LtCdr Esmond's VC was posthumous. All The more poignant because the day before he had been at Buckingham Palace receiving his DSO for the Bismark action.

Also, I note from the magazine article that the Battle of Britain service is still held every year. Why not the Battle of the Atlantic one? Would "Coastal Command" like to take it on?

Flatus Veteranus

24th Aug 2006, 16:35

Perhaps we should turn back to what the great man himself had to say – not in 1940 when, as the academic lightweights suggest, he might have been doing some deliberate myth-making – but when he published his own history of the Second World War in the late 1940s, by when time and victory must have allowed him to be objective. I quote as follows from Vol II, Chapter XIV – “The Invasion Problem”

THE FALL OF FRANCE

“Sea-power, when properly understood, is a wonderful thing. The passage of an army across salt water in the face of superior fleets and flotillas is an almost impossible feat. Steam had added enormously to the power of the Navy to defend Great Britain. In Napoleon's day the same wind which would carry his flat-bottomed boats across the Channel from Boulogne would drive away our blockading squadrons. But everything that had happened since then had magnified the power of the superior navy to destroy the invaders in transit. Every complication which modern apparatus had added to armies made their voyage more cumbrous and perilous, and the difficulties of their maintenance when landed probably insuperable. At that former crisis in our Island fortunes we possessed superior and, as it proved, ample sea-power. The enemy was unable to gain a major sea battle against us. He could not face our cruiser forces. In flotillas and light craft we outnumbered him tenfold. Against this must be set the incalculable chances of weather, particularly fog. But even if this were adverse and a descent were effected at one or more points the problem of maintaining a hostile line of communications and of nourishing any lodgments remained unsolved. Such was the position in the First Great War.

But now there was the air. What effect had this sovereign development produced upon the invasion problem? Evidently if the enemy could dominate the narrow seas, on both sides of the Straits of Dover, by superior air-power, the losses of our flotillas would be very heavy and might eventually be fatal. No one would wish, except on a supreme occasion, to bring heavy battleships or large cruisers into waters commanded by the German bombers. We did not in fact station any capital ship south of the Forth or east of Plymouth. But from Harwich, the Nore, Dover, Portsmouth, and Portland we maintained a tireless, vigilant patrol of light fighting vessels which steadily increased in number. By September they exceeded eight hundred, which only a hostile air-power could destroy, and then only by degrees. But who had the power in the air? In the Battle of France we had fought the Germans against odds of two and three to one and inflicted losses in similar proportions. Over Dunkirk, where we had to maintain continuous patrol to cover the escape of the Armv we had fought at four or five to one with success and profit. Over our own waters and exposed coasts and counties Air Chief Marshal Dowding contemplated profitable fighting at seven or eight to one. The strength of the German Air Force at this time, taken as a whole, so far as we knew - and we were well informed - apart from particular concentrations, was about three to one. Although these were heavy odds at which to fight the brave and efficient German foe, I rested upon the conclusion that in our own air, over our own country and its waters, we could beat the German Air Force. And if this were true our naval power would continue to rule, the seas and oceans and would destroy all enemies who set their course towards us.

There was of course a third potential factor. Had the Germans with their renowned thoroughness and foresight secretly prepared a vast armada of special landing-craft, which needed no harbours or quays, but could land tanks, cannon, and motor vehicles anywhere on the beaches, and which thereafter could supply the landed troops? As has been 'shown, such ideas had risen in my mind long ago in 1917, and were now being actually developed as the result of my directions. We had however no reason to believe that anything of this kind existed in Germany, though it is always best when counting the cost not to exclude the worst. It took us four years of intense effort and experiment and immense material aid from the United States to provide such equipment on a scale equal to the Normandy landing. Much less would have sufficed the Germans at this moment. But they had only a few Siebel ferries.

Thus the invasion of England in the summer and autumn of 1940 required from Germany local naval superiority and air superiority and immense special fleets and landing-craft. But it was we who had the naval superiority; it was we who conquered the mastery in the air; and finally we believed, as we now know rightly, that they had not built or conceived any special craft. These were the foundations of my thought about invasion in 1940.”

It seems clear, therefore, IMHO, that local air and naval superiority were the pre-requisites for any German attempt to invade. The failure of the Luftwaffe to achieve the former rendered the latter irrelevant.

SAR Boy Anchor

24th Aug 2006, 17:16

Got a new headline for Tomorrows Telegraph:-

"Battle of Trafalgar Made Irrelevant By Storm the Day After"

concentrating on how most of the Spanish and French ships would have been sunk by the storm which occured shortly afterwards without the help of Nelson....

Jimlad1

24th Aug 2006, 17:41

"No mention of the packs of u boats which caused such huge carnage amongst the merchant."

Probably because in early 1940 there were very few U boats in service, I believe it was less than 20 on patrol globally at any point. i have the exact figure elsewhere, but having read a study of the submarine war, its worth noting that it wasn't until the middle of the war that the Germans really had a significant number of boats on station.

Also worth noting that even if the Germans had landed without destruction by the RN, they would have failed anyway due to the vast logistical problems - they would need to gain command of the sea for a prolonged (i.e. several weeks) time to get the troops and materiel across the channel in sufficient numbers to do the job. The existence of the RN on global stations would have made this job impossible to do.

That said (and saying this as a matelot), the glory rightly belongs to the RAF / FAA and associated nationalities for their heroic efforts.

SASless

24th Aug 2006, 18:23

Widger

24th Aug 2006, 18:37

SASless, my god...for once you speak sense!!:E :ok:

covec

24th Aug 2006, 18:58

"The Battle of Britain was "a sacrosanct event" for the RAF, like Waterloo for the Army and Trafalgar for the Navy".

Without taking anything away from Fighter Command, I think that it is a travesty that more "recognition" is not forthcoming for the guys of Bomber Command.

We should be ashamed that we do not officially commemorate the sacrifices made by the bomber crews of yesteryear e.g. like BoB Day.

I know that you could argue that it would open up the debate about what battles warranted what commemoration / recognition but come on - we are talking about probably the two biggest RAF events: BoB & the Bomber War - or perhaps people do not recognise (want to?) the sacrifices made by the bombers 'cos it is an FJ airforce?:(

My grandad served on Wellingtons & Lancasters. Terrible stories....

Brewster Buffalo

24th Aug 2006, 19:07

Perhaps the real reasoning behind the appearance of this article (or troll :E) is this is the "silly season" for newspapers when editors struggle to find stories to fill the pages...so......

STANDTO

24th Aug 2006, 19:12

Hang on a minute.

everyone knows that the Falklands would have been lost without the heroic efforts of the Black Buck missions, and that all that pootling about in Sea Harriers and ships was just pointless posturing.

:hmm:

doubledolphins

24th Aug 2006, 19:53

Of course Standto is correct. Why else would there be such a drive to get the Vulcan flying again and not a word about the Shar?

Sorry, very cheap, like I said earlier, just off to open a bottle of single malt and watch the B of B dvd.:ok:

BEagle

24th Aug 2006, 20:11

STANDTO, the Vulcan raids had the effect of moving the Argentine air defence aircraft to northern locations out of range of the Malvinas, to defend their cities against possible future anti-city Vulcan attacks....

Much as the air defence of Germany against Bomber Command tied up large numbers of fighters and 88mm flak guns, denying their deployment for offensive purposes.

SASless is indeed right on. The change of targetting certainly gave Fighter Command a break, allowing rest and reinforcement. But, more importantly, probably gave Corporal H the first clue that his thousand year reich would never happen.

The part played by the US needs to be made more widely known. During the pre-Pearl Harbor time, it wasn't just men who quietly came over to augment the RAF, but also materiel. There was one story about aircraft being flown to the far north of the US, then being towed across the frontier into Canada. From there they were flown to Great Britain.... Thus the US hadn't broken her neutrality!

STANDTO

24th Aug 2006, 20:14

Not according to my mate Sharkey :ok:

Beags has to be the biggest fish I've ever landed. Can I have him preserved and put above the mantelpiece? :}

BEagle

24th Aug 2006, 20:22

There's no accounting for taste.....

First time I ever came across the Bearded Bull****ter was at Deci. He kept going on about how some ground forces had come across a number of American mercenaries fighting for the Argentine in some hut in Lafonia or somewhere and had shot the lot without question when they tried to surrender....

Anyway, back to more important issues:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork03.jpg

GasFitter

24th Aug 2006, 20:34

Let's really set the record straight....the Germans won the BoB for the British.
When the attacks on the RAF infrastructure was diverted to bombing cities the RAF was able to survive. If they had continued removing the Chain Home Radar stations and depleting Fighter Command the situation would have been very much different.
Perhaps the real loss was caused by a single Luftwaffe bomber crew that got lost and bombed London quite by mistake which then set off the city bombing against each side.
Had the Luftwaffe attended to business correctly they would have acheived Air Superiority if not Supremacy thus the Naval portion of the invasion might have been able to persevere.
Thankfully, the better outcome was achieved.:ok:

I would suggest that it was Portal's Bomber Command that won the BoB. By attacking Berlin, the German Cpl changed his attacks to London, thus saving Fighter Command. Bomber Command was the only European offensive tool in the British armoury at the time.

I contend that Fighter Command was the shield, whilst Bomber Command was the sword!

Strictly Jungly

24th Aug 2006, 20:35

There's no accounting for taste.....
First time I ever came across the Bearded Bull****ter was at Deci. He kept going on about how some ground forces had come across a number of American mercenaries fighting for the Argentine in some hut in Lafonia or somewhere and had shot the lot without question when they tried to surrender....
Anyway, back to more important issues:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork03.jpg

Did Sharky ever get ashore during hostilities? Can't remember seeing him! Rumours were circulating about the mercenaries...who knows?

BTW - my favourite scene!

kevmusic

24th Aug 2006, 20:37

Strobin Purple

24th Aug 2006, 20:54

The ultimately superior performance of the RR Merlin engined Spit and Hurricane was directly attributable to the 100 octance fuel available at the time....where in 1940 could you get that stuff?

Answers on a postcard please to: The Yanks Won the BofB for us Competition, RAF Shrivenham, England (courtesy of the RAF, and some Spam oilers, oh and merch navy...God bless 'em, protected by the Royal Navy most of the way...so back to the Merch and Royal Navies winning for us).

BTW I once spoke to MRAF Sir Chris Foxley-Norris (one of the Few and tout circule bon oeuf) and he said that we were on our uppers and that Hitler threw it away like someone who'd done a deal with Ladbrokes!

The greater argument would be that Hitler, having failed in a relatively (to him) simple act of drawing a fellow Anglo Saxon nation to heel, embarked upon the war-losing act of launching Op Barbarossa which really did do it for the Boxheads, even if they didn't know it at the time. So by supplying Hitler with a bloody nose in 1940 and by forcing his attention eastwards, regardless of the revisionist 40-something experts notions, the RAF did actually win WW2! We just got the Russians to do it by proxy.

Nazdarovya!

BEagle

24th Aug 2006, 21:00

OK, OK.....

But what about Susannah's bum?

SASless

24th Aug 2006, 21:50

Odd thing....A Hitler and company never saw Great Britain as the "enemy" but always had the evil eye upon the Soviets. I am lead to believe Hitler would have accepted a negotiated peace with the British so he could have concentrated his forces for the real war in the East. North Africa, Crete, Greece and the Balkans were forced upon him by the inept efforts of the fat buffoon in Italy. Had Mussolini remained on the sidelines and not gotten involved in those places, the Germans would not have had to send troops that direction.

Oh...nice bum she had...but a bit pudgy for American tastes.

TheInquisitor

24th Aug 2006, 22:08

"NAVAL historian says RN won the Battle of Britain"

What a surprise. I'm a little disappointed that Christina Gaulter didn't fight the Air corner - but she must be getting on a bit by now...

It says something that virually all the Matelots in here (normally the mortal enemy of us Crabs) think you are talking bollocks, Dr Andrew Gordon.

Ah yes - Susannah's pins & buns. Very nice. The WRAF has definitely gone downhill since...

Sunfish

24th Aug 2006, 23:38

One might just as well write an article about how airpower (Coastal Command) won the battle of the Atlantic, not the Navy.

I guess to me the question is - would Hitler have been encouraged to mount Sealion if Goering had convincingly won the battle of Britain and achieved air superiority?

brickhistory

24th Aug 2006, 23:45

Oh...nice bum she had...but a bit pudgy for American tastes.

Not this one! :E

Father Jack Hackett

25th Aug 2006, 00:21

Sussanah York's bottom; now I remember why the Battle of Britain movie inspired me to join the RAF. Then I joined up and encountered real waafs posteriors - oh the disillusionment!

But seriously, I presume most of us have seen The World at War - an amazing historical tv series that is still the definitive visual account of WWII, not least due to the captivating narration of Laurence Olivier (aka Dowding in the B of B movie coincidentally). In the episode that covers the battle, the Luftwaffe campaign to attack shipping in the channel in the period between Dunkirk and "Adler Tag" (15 Aug 1940 IIRC) should convince anybody of the importance of air superiority in conducting littoral ops in the channel to both sides. The episode includes footage of RN and merchant shipping getting the good news from Stukas and other light bombers.

It is clear that the Germans could not have attempted an invasion without neutralizing the air threat and although I admit that the RN alone could have seriously rained on the germans' parade, without air cover they would have suffered murderous losses themselves. The implicit threat of British seapower was crucial in deterring invasion, but to rubbish the RAF victory is at best disingenuous. Why do you think WWII saw the end of the Battleship as capital vessel to be replaced by the AIRCRAFT carrier.

Revisionists are dangerous people - they're always coming up with these sensational rewrites of history, motivated almost entirely by ego and not a noble struggle to find the truth. Don't let them get away with it!

Honestly I'm not always this serious - rant over.

STANDTO

25th Aug 2006, 06:09

"...............Not according to my mate Sharkey"

Please note I made that bit up.

Beags. Have you any more pictures - pref naked (of SY not you)

Doc Martin

25th Aug 2006, 06:37

I believe it was a combination of effects which dissuaded Hitler from invading. Remember, much of the history of the Battle of Britain we learn about is inaccurate. Was the Battle worth fighting at all? The best evidence that we have on this came from Field Marshal Von Rondstedt. After the end of the war he was interrogated and one of the most important questions asked of him was when he felt that the tide was beginning to turn and when the uninterrupted catalogue of German victories became more and more doubtful. Was it Stalingrad or Leningrad or El Alamein? ‘Oh no,’ replied the Field Marshal, ‘ it was the Battle of Britain.’ This answer certainly surprised the interrogators and they questioned him further. ‘Well you see, that was the fist time I realized that we were not invincible.’

German Field Marshal Gerd Von Rundstedt was known as “a high priest of strategy” and was one of Hitler’s ablest leaders during WWII. He held commands on both the Eastern and Western fronts, played a major role in defeating France in 1940, and led much of the opposition to the Allied offence in the West in 1944-45.

Roland Pulfrew

25th Aug 2006, 07:33

Nice one from Matt in today's Telegraph. Made me chuckle anyway!! :ok:

(Now if only I could get the link to work)

ORAC

25th Aug 2006, 07:39

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/08/25/matt.gif

Roland Pulfrew

25th Aug 2006, 07:47

Thanks ORAC.:)

airborne_artist

25th Aug 2006, 08:35

From the letters page:

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0)Sir - I was privileged to serve in the RAF and Fleet Air Arm in the Second World War. What is the point of these "military historians" and "leading academics" trying to rewrite history and start an inter-Service argument? Everybody at the time did his or her bit. These clever dicks, who were not there, should shut up.

Edward Huxley, Thorpe, Surrey

Skunkerama

25th Aug 2006, 09:02

Always makes me laugh when a "historian" looks back at something that happened many years ago but with a modern eye.

These idiots are just trying to get advertising for their new book launch.

Not only did the RAF repel the Luftwaffe which made Hitler think twice (we all know that without air supremacy, any land or sea based operation is 10 times more costly and difficult).
What is forgotten though is the backbone that the BoB infused into Britain. The propaganda victory for Churchill was immense and it gave hope to a nation.

Of course the Navy was a huge deterrent also, but if the Luftwaffe had had complete reign over the channel then it would have been incredibly costly for the admiralty.

The Battle of Britain proved to Hitler that it Britain wouldn't capitulate like France and that he'd have a tough time taking it. That battle victory will never be taken away from the few.

endplay

25th Aug 2006, 09:33

If the historians are right wouldn't it have made sense to let the Luftwaffe win the BoB then the navy could have sunk the invasion fleet and everyone could have been home for tea and tiffins by christmas? Seems like a missed opportunity to me.

mikip

25th Aug 2006, 10:30

Is this not just the usual british disease of knocking and denigrating any achievement or victory that has been made, we will no doubt be getting demands soon that the RAF apologise to all the luftwaffe personell that were killed or injured by the over zealous RAF

Mr-AEO

25th Aug 2006, 12:43

Being serious for a moment.

Is that a wig Susannah is wearing?:E

BEagle

25th Aug 2006, 12:54

I don't think so.....

Neither, I think, was this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/York.jpg

covec

25th Aug 2006, 17:34

That last piccie - wonder what she is looking at - bet it's a Bomber Command aircraft - size & "payload" matters you know....

Tim Mills

26th Aug 2006, 04:00

I think all I was going to say about the revisionist view of history, with the benefit of many years of hindsight, has been said already. From my purely selfish point of view, and with due homage to those gallant people who won it, I am very glad there was a Battle of Britain, because otherwise there would have been no film made of it, and I would not have had the marvellous opportunity to fly those wonderful aeroplanes.

And seen so many pictures of Beags favourite actress!

ident80enter

26th Aug 2006, 09:54

Hmmmm. I believe that academics have a duty to tell it as it is and not try to rewrite history. Ok, so in their opinion the RAF didn't save Britain or read another way 'air power' didn't win the war. Well lets see. Anyone who has read Panzer Meyer's 'Grenadier' and its history of the Hitler Youth division fighting in Normandy will know exactly who they think one the war. The US Army air force and bomber command pounded German railroads, supply routes, comms stations, radar staions, bridges, road bottlenecks etc which totally disrupted the Germans ability to move reinforcements quickly to the front. On the Tactical level the ATAFs destroyed the Germans ability to concentrate armour during daylight hours by attacking everything that moved. Not too much damage done by naval gunfire here. Likewise the Divisional histories of Das Reich, Gross Deutschland. Panzer Leir, Totenkopf etc all pay homage to the fact that air power destroyed the German ability to fight. Therefore if allied air power ensured a victory over the skies of Britain that prevented a German invasion then surely it was a lack of German air power that ensured D-Day was the success it was. So it was the RAF that prevented a German invasion and a lack of German air power that meant they could not prevent an invasion when their turn came to be the few.

Finally academics should not be allowed to publish on military history until they've had the balls to nail their colours to the flagpole for a while and do so time outside of a library!:} :}

oojamaflip

26th Aug 2006, 17:51

I think the common sense truth has been fairly well laid out. The air assets were the first line of defence and the sea assets were the second.
Had Fighter command rolled over and let the Luftwaffe tickle it's tummy, the Navy would probably, but not definitely, have halted any German attempts to establish a bridgehead Blighty side. However, as various other actions proved, even if successful the cost to the RN would have weakened it severely and rendered the outcome of the battle of the Atlantic less certain.
The main point about the BoB is that it signalled intent. The 3000 men who flew in it (78% RAF, 22% other) were the pointy end of the national will - a direct extension of the Dunkerque spirit of a few months earlier when the other two services showed their mettle and the forerunner of the East end spirit of the blitz when the civilians showed theirs.
So, I take nothing away from the RAF, it was their finest hour. Did it outweigh Dunkerque, the battle of the Atlantic, the allied bombing campaign, D-day? Each was vital and each time brave men stood up to be counted, but at no other time was the nation so in need of a victory to stop the rot and take the wind from the sails of the Duke of Windsor and the other surrender monkeys. So yeah, the bravery of the men and the timing of the action helped the nation turn the corner. Even if the 2nd line of defence would have stopped them, the point is that a smaller and second favourite 1st line of defence did the job against the odds and there was no better way to say 'This far and no further'.

Shackman

26th Aug 2006, 17:58

Somewhere in the South of England, Sep 1940. Time 0830

It was almost a perfect idyll. In the distance could be heard cows mooing in the fields, above the skylarks were singing. Around the green hut stood, sat or slept a number of Britain’s finest, waiting for the call once more to go into action, apart from those playing Bowls.

Suddenly the insistent ringing of a telephone inside the hut broke the relative peace. Immediately all those outside looked up expectantly as it was answered: a face looked out and shouted “Don’t worry – just the Met Office – spring will be early next year!” At that the assembled multitude relaxed.

The phone rang again; this time the face leans out and shouts “Scramble, Scramble, Angels One Five” – elsewhere someone is ringing a large fire bell to warn the crews that their steeds are required.

Immediately the area outside the hut becomes a hornet’s nest of activity, just as the door to the hut opens and out strides the boss – steely eyed ‘Hurricane’ Higgins, who shouts above the uproar “OK boys, this is it. Biggest raid so far so do your duty. Launch the fleet and make every round count.”

At that everyone takes flight, walking down the hill to Plymouth Docks, puffing on their pipes and discussing seniority and who will be in charge today. The crews are already streaming aboard, manning their action stations, whilst down in the bowels Chief Stokers are busy lighting their boilers, getting up steam and all the other myriad of things that Chief Stokers are required to do. Even the Chief Stoker’s Mates are hard at work!

Soon (under an hour – the best yet) the Dover Flotilla is slipping from the harbour and making for the open sea. Less than a day later they make the narrows of the English Channel, with only a few losses due to U Boats, MTBs, Mines, Air Attack and the odd collision, but they know they are there to save the Motherland. Overhead they can see swarms of aircraft and the sound of battle rages – all around machines are plunging seawards streaming smoke and flames, and parachutes are drifting around like confetti. “Hold your Fire” shouts Capt (D), “wait till you see the whites of their eyes”. Unfortunately no one comes close enough to see the whites or anything else of the eyes, but they let off a few desultory rounds of 4.5in shells into the air – one of which hits a lone Spitfire, and another parachute opens out.

“Number 1” says the Captain – “go get that man from the water”. The command is repeated all the way down to the lowly Middy, who eventually launches the Ships Boat, and with his crew of oarsmen paddles out to pick up the poor unfortunate from the briny, and brings him back on board.

He immediately rushes up to the bridge, and shouts to the Captain, “Do you realise what you’ve done – I was the last fighter protecting the country, all my fellow pilots have been shot down and we have no replacements”.

“Don’t worry, the Navy’s here. We’ll win this silly little battle for you. And don’t you shout at me on my bridge. OOW take him away and give him some nice hot chocolate stuff while we sort things out”

Just then there’s a call from one of the lookouts “Cap’n – There’s Klingons (sorry, wrong story – I meant Fockers) on the starboard bow – Farsands of ‘em”.

At that the Captain picks up his telescope and looks out – “I see no aircraft – rest easy men , we’ll go down in history as having won the Battle of Britain”. Shortly thereafter the fleet is overwhelmed by countless bombers and sinks quickly into the Channel.

And, as the Captain said – the rest is history.

microlight AV8R

26th Aug 2006, 18:42

As a humble taxpayer, no longer in uniform I beg to ask: Are these three idiots employed by MOD? Or indeed have they taken the Queens shilling?
There is a smack of treason to this! As they seem to be so supportive of the coastguard (oops, sorry I meant Navy) perhaps they should be allowed to walk the plank.
SY: What a marvellous bottom. Marks out of ten? = I'll give 'er one :cool:

FakePilot

26th Aug 2006, 18:50

I'm under the impression that one of Germany's main screw-ups was not to control the air. However, air superiority does not win the war. So.... Neither service won war. Joint use of arms.

Of course, fixating on one particular type of military arm has always been the downfall of the obessed. Get over it. Whatever works, however dishonorable. Fair fighting is for the loser.

hardy jack

27th Aug 2006, 07:45

Probably time to give the academics a break - they're all good folk, paid to look at the facts (not convenient 'Commando mag' or Daily Mail reader versions) in order to make the present crop of under resourced future leaders think about the inter-relationships that make defence work from a grown up perspective. People who are going to do this for real need to look beyond the jingoism, s-Svc sensitivities and 'lions led by donkeys' crass simplifications. For the 'tax payer' above, if they achieve this they're worth every penny. They're also on our side - which makes a change from a lot of academe.

Don't be fooled by the DT style of reporting (who spookily had a leader and various articles to hand before they splashed the 'news'). The analysis wasn't 'revisionist' (mainly because it had all been said and understood before - plagiarism (sorry 'research'!) is, of course, alive and well) and it takes absolutely nothing away from the RAF (or the FAA, Empire and naval/army AA folk, etc) who participated in a vital victory that proved the 'invincible Hun' could actually be beated on a battle ground that was of his own choosing, showed the Yanks we were serious and the claiming of the victory probably allowing the Churchill faction to stay in power rather than the appeasers returning. This is no different to the in-house work on DCA/OCA gradients that shows we damn well should have won - and we don't get hot and bothered about that.
What it didn't do, though, was stop an invasion, primarily because the Germans didn't launch one and mainly because they were incapable of doing so. 42-44 in Europe and 43-45 in the Pacific showed what it takes to sieze and hold territory from the sea; the Wehrmacht didn't even begin to have the technical competence, let alone Germany the maritime superiority (which comes from both sea and air power as any fule know) to attempt an invasion let alone sustain it. Even with complete air superiority, the Germans couldn't prevent maritime ops off Crete, etc and although inflicting serious losses (taken knowingly by ABC in order to get the job done), still had their only attempt at a seaborne assault heavily defeated with much loss of soldiery. Faced with a large navy including specialist coastal forces (c/f what the E-boats did to the US of Slapton in 44), a professional Army that had been dragged out of France and air defences that even if FC had been 'defeated' wouldn't have disappeared altogether (look at the Luftwaffe over GE in 44-45), lots of open barges pulled by tugs with no escorts just wouldn't cut it no matter how much air cover there was. The German generals knew this - and that they couldn't absorb the manpower losses when the troops were needed for the real battle in the East, especially when they had diverted too many into the Balkans, etc to rescue the Italians from their fiascos.
IMHO the BoB as fought was a great victory over a determined foe who were engaged in an aerial bombardment and intimidation campaign, with an army supposedly standing by to invade, in order to get an irritating enemy to the negotiating table so they could get on with the real task elsewhere. Classic IO and spookily familiar to recent events (albeit there with a better result from our pov!).
Rant nearing end, but I think claiming it defeated an invasion that might have been launched undersells the achievement and will always be open to argument. If you want an argument, go for the bigger and probably more accurate claim that winning the BoB kept us in the war and therefore meant that Nazi-ism was defeated a lot earlier than it would have been otherwise, if at all.
That said, any thread that generates pictures of SY has got to be good ... now how do we get them to publish something that leads to FK appearing here?!!

RubiC Cube

27th Aug 2006, 07:49

hardy jack

27th Aug 2006, 11:51

Scene: Shrivenham
Location: RAFJD
Heated Syndicate Discussion Topic: Air Power in the Gulf
Anonymous Tutor (in lumpy jumper, initials CG): I'm the air power expert, this is the way Tornados should be used.
Student: Have you flown a Tornado at 200ft over the desert whilst being shot at?
Tutor: No.
Student: I have, I think that makes me the expert.

Hmm - true not always at their best at the tactical level with the frontline in attendance. However, comments about deeper thinking weren't really aimed at the junior school level (no disrespect intended) as that serves a different purpose. It's probably also where they practice getting through to people so as to be more effective at the VIth form level!!

That said, all 3 svcs have a long history of pursuing incorrect tactics (dogma?)in the face of mounting casualties until forced to look at themselves from someone else's viewpoint - convoys (or not), fighter formations, etc, etc. Once we started believing that OA/scientists/academics could sometimes see things the frontline was too busy to realise, it helped. Just as long as it doesn't get to be treated as the infallible 'golden bullet' that some in that line of business (or the SW1A palace of fun) see it to be.