Battle of Britain question
Thread Starter
Battle of Britain question
I appreciate there was a dispute during the B of B as to whether to take the time to build up 'big wings' in order to destroy the maximum number of bombers, or to attack the bombers at the first opportunity in order to protect the airfields.
What I don't understand is why exactly a big wing approach would bring down more bombers than the same number of squadrons attacking separately.
Was it a case of overwhelming the escorting fighters, or what?
What I don't understand is why exactly a big wing approach would bring down more bombers than the same number of squadrons attacking separately.
Was it a case of overwhelming the escorting fighters, or what?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 68
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The theory is that if you concentrate your forces rather than spreading them thinly, it has a stronger effect on the enemy.
F W Lanchester (1868-1948) put forward mathematical theories relating to combat in his 1916 book "Aircraft in Warfare: the dawn of the third arm" which suggested that it was necessary to outnumber the enemy by (I think) at least 3 to 1. This concept seems to have been taken into RAF doctrine, which would have influenced Leigh-Mallory.
Those who are better at maths than I might like to look at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/BoBtalk.pdf
F W Lanchester (1868-1948) put forward mathematical theories relating to combat in his 1916 book "Aircraft in Warfare: the dawn of the third arm" which suggested that it was necessary to outnumber the enemy by (I think) at least 3 to 1. This concept seems to have been taken into RAF doctrine, which would have influenced Leigh-Mallory.
Those who are better at maths than I might like to look at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/BoBtalk.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Colchester
Age: 40
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battle of Britain question
Overwhelming numbers and firepower concentrated in one place. Plain and simple.
Same as having the B-17s and -24s in mass formations later on for the offensive phase, essentially.
Same as having the B-17s and -24s in mass formations later on for the offensive phase, essentially.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time and distance. IF you were outside the "immediate" combat area, you had to be alerted, scrambled, assembled and directed to the Enemy. This took time.
If you can imagine the "average" squadron on readiness.....10 mins to scramble,,, they are scrambled, along with two other squadrons, not necessarily from the same airfield, they have to be assembled, and fed into the system...but the time element has moved the Enemy. Have they turned into the wing, away, or carried straight on?
Don't forget, at that time, Radar [RDF] did NOT work very well over land so the plotters/controllers could not see them, that was down to the Royal Observer Corps [who did a sterling job] BUT if there was significant amounts of cloud, they were snookered
I worked as a Radar op in the '60s, and the stuff was magic. I've also used WW11 stuff and THAT is witchcraft
If you can imagine the "average" squadron on readiness.....10 mins to scramble,,, they are scrambled, along with two other squadrons, not necessarily from the same airfield, they have to be assembled, and fed into the system...but the time element has moved the Enemy. Have they turned into the wing, away, or carried straight on?
Don't forget, at that time, Radar [RDF] did NOT work very well over land so the plotters/controllers could not see them, that was down to the Royal Observer Corps [who did a sterling job] BUT if there was significant amounts of cloud, they were snookered
I worked as a Radar op in the '60s, and the stuff was magic. I've also used WW11 stuff and THAT is witchcraft
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my readings and discussions with a few of the few the principal was acceptable but the principal, if it worked, was to confront the formations head-on and break them up. Bader and Al Deere were the main force behind its workings. Breaking them up caused mayhem and many turned for home up formations became looser they were better targets. Sailor Milan would not join in but kept his squadron doing what they were good at. Shooting them down.
Thread Starter
Yes, from what I've read the doctrine of (to quote the film) 'better to get 50 after they've bombed than 10 before' was strategically sound, but tactically dubious. At least while the main targets were Kent airfields.
