Battle of Britain 3 Days To Save The UK
 

SBS Australia Saturday Night 0835 pm, second part of this 3 part series.

Watched a few minutes of the first episode, from last week and so far so good.

Saving Britain
 

What saved Britain (and eventually Europe) was Churchills ability to convince the Full and war cabinet that we should fight on after Dunkirk. He did this on May 28th 1940 in a brilliant move that saw a major decision made not to sue for peace with Hitler. Dowding had already saved precious aircraft to defend the Country and had faith in our air defence system (the only one in the world) That is what saved Britain.

I've often wondered if Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing when he held up the piece of paper. That he knew it would be the end of not only his political career, but also his reputation, but that he was prepared to pay that price in the hope that it would give us enough time to rearm

Had we not had that extra sliver of time, would Dowding have had anything to save?

Dowding built the air defence system. Regardless of the aircraft Dowding refused to send to France, Beaverbrook was pivotal in diverting resources to fighter production during the BoB.
Fighter Command lost 40% of its strength from early August to the end of August.
Yet the number of aircraft available rose steadily from late June until late October , actually peaking at the end of August.

Hitler saved Britain by various means. A) After the defeat of France he ordered research into expensive new projects like the ME262 be ceased. B) He ordered advancement in bomber development (such as the Condor) be ceased. C) he genuinely wanted to spare Britain as he saw them as a future ally against communism.

Hitler and Churchill were both genocidal monsters (no arguments that Hitler was worse). The Victor got to write his own epitaph unsurprisingly.

Interesting take on history even if totally incorrect. I think Crazy Adolf was just more obsessed with Russia rather than pleasantly disposed to Britain.

One of the better outcomes of technology and the internet is that I can watch docos like this one on my Ipad while happily engaging in my favourite hobbies.

The German Armed forces had no contingency plan for a rapid, opportunistic invasion of the UK. Hitler quite rightly remembered how the French had pulled themselves off the floor in 1914 (and even in 1870) and wanted to be absolutely sure that this time there would be no comeback.

the British had an untested Air defence system but the month or so's breathing space after Dunkirk was just enough to survive- up fighter production and re equip the infantry

Aaaaa etc,
Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing I believe. He well knew that Britain could not possibly go to war and survive at that point, not a hope in hell.
So I totally agree that Chamberlain was a true patriot in that he willingly sacrificed his career and reputation for the good of Britain.
An outstanding politician richly deserving a much better memory than he has these days.

Churchill, a "genocidal monster"?

I don't think I've ever read such a ludicrously deluded or simply ridiculous post on this forum!

On which planet did you learn your 'history'?

Well he opened concentration camps in Kenya in the 50s, in which many thousands of civilians were killed (Obama’s grandfather was a survivor, he had his balls crushed by red hot steel bars). Using concentration camps to wipe out civilian populations based on ethnicity is the definition of genocide, no?

The Bengal famine was deliberately engineered by his government in 43 lets not forget. About 3 million people died in that one.

The man was a colonial bar steward, but thankfully less of a bar steward than the little Austrian chap.

You ask where I learned my history. I ask, genuinely, were you ever taught about British concentration camps in Kenya in the course of your education?

Always interesting to play Historical What If

I have read that Hitler's ultimate goal was to attack and defeat Russia (or Communism if you prefer) and it seems logical that the first strike would be to the West to secure the rear flank and gain/capture men and materiel. Britain being a Colonial power would possibly have been invited to join in rather than be invaded especially as invasion would be a costly affair. But it would still invaded if necessary. The US was at the time a rather small player on the world stage [1] and if you look at race relations in the thirties and forties you might ask: disregarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, which would have been the more logical side for it to join? ... especially if there was a pact between Germany and Britain [2]

It's easy to look at history through the lens of what we now know, and equally easy to forget that in 1939 things could have gone either way. There were after all quite a few British people who thought we should side with Germany

[1] Was WWII the best thing that ever happened to America?
[2] It is ironic that the US play a significant role in the defeat of Nazism with a segregated military

I like how you answered your own question correctly. One definition of genocide is: the problem now is the definition changes according to who is interpreting the legal frame work.

Indeed the question about where you learnt your history needs to be asked because at its most basic you are getting it wrong. It may surprise you to learn that the first British concentration camps, in fact the first concentration camps were in South Africa during the Boer War. Rounding up the civilian population was an effective , if very cruel, way of suppressing the Boer insurgency/freedom fighters. Not genocide but in today's world possibly a war crime. What the Brits were doing in Kenya, which you either didn't know or failed to mention, was suppressing quite a vicious guerilla uprising by groups wanting independence. So the concentration camps would have been in response to that and which had proved effective in SA. The Brits had also suppressed a communist insurgency in Malaya so they had a proven strategy of dealing with in country uprisings. Their response was a military and security response but in no way does it meet the genocide definition. Crazy Adolf set about completely obliterating European Jewry as an aside to his military ambitions. To say the British actions are the same is simply incorrect.

It's the emotional inference from the term "Concentration" that aggravates the issue, by confounding the understanding with that of actual Extermination Camps.

Lots of people contributed to the Battle of Britain in lots of different ways. One of the points made by Derek Wood in the meticulously researched "Narrow Margin" is the way British industry comprehensively out-performed German industry from the mid 1930s to the end of the war (which is a controversial finding given the traditional views about German industrial efficiency). They produced larger numbers of aircraft (and tanks, and ships, and guns), they proved more resilient to attack by restoring production more quickly after bombing, and they had a far more effective support & repair organisation which gathered damaged aircraft & components to build usable ones from the damaged parts to supplement new production. This meant that Britain was never at any time short of aircraft - just pilots. In contrast the Luftwaffe often suffered AOGs due to basic lack of spares - the industrial focus was on building new types rather than sustaining the extant operational capability.

PDR

The problem with Chamberlain isn't so much 1938 but 1939-40 when he proved incapable of fighting a war - the Norway Campaign was just the last in a series of really awful actions of his Govt. It was only after he was replaced that fighter production REALLY took off

Being prepared
 

The main difference in our defeat in France and our success in defending the homeland was the RAF had a 'system' for air defence albeit untested. As this was unique in world wide terms it was also a fairy well kept secret. The fact that the system worked (together with the Observer Corps back up) gave us that opportunity to deploy our limited forces to the best advantage. The effect on the Luftwaffe taking real casualties (and loosing crews) must have been a shock to their morale after having such a quick run through France. Had Russia not received the help we could provide after the BoB (we eventually sent them over 2,000 hurricanes) then their situation may not have prevailed.

Ah yes, suppressing a vicious guerilla war...for their independence. Just like using the black and tans in Ireland or famine as a weapon in India, kill those pesky civilians and take the heat out of the whole situation. It worked for centuries but then came along print media and radio and suddenly it did more harm than good (ie increased anti Empire feeling and support for independence).

The estimates vary wildly on the number of Kenyan civilians killed in those camps, from about 30k to well over 100k. The facts are the civilian population of a particular ethnic group (Mau Mau) were systematically rounded up, tortured, starved or just plain murdered with the intention of making them disappear or stop fighting for their independence, whichever occurred first (the women tended to have broken glass bottles shoved up their orifices for example, both as a form of torture and to make them infertile, again to wipe out the ethnic group). It only stopped when, as usual for the 20th century, the failing empire realised they had gone too far, could no longer suppress the insurrection and needed to get the hell out of Dodge fast (whilst burning as much incriminating documentation as possible).

"a particular ethnic group (Mau Mau)"
Really?
( A bit like calling the I.R.A. "a particular ethnic group")

Agreed Haraka, the main tribe making up the Mau Mau were the Kikuyu, although many other tribal groups participated in the Mau Mau.

"the way British industry comprehensively out-performed German industry from the mid 1930s to the end of the war "

The Germans weren't on anything like the same war footing as the UK until late '44 and even then Speer could never get Hitler to go for an absolute war economy

The British were ruthless from Day 1, introduced tough rationing, mobilising vast numbers of women and total Govt direction of all aspects of National Life - the Germans were still worrying about drafting servants as late as '43

Don't forget that the German navy took a pounding during the Norway invasion, and the had little surface ships left...

The Royal Navy, on the other hand, had a substantial fleet in home waters, and would have had little trouble stopping any sort of makeshift German invasion attempt,

The RAF ensured that the Luftwaffe could never achieve sufficient air superiority, to protect all those flat bottomed barges being towed slowly accros the Channel.
.
So as long as Churchill said no to any peace talks, Hitler could say what he liked, but the German navy simply didnt have the capability to launch any kind of invasion..

The romantic idea that "The Few" saved Britain in 1940, is only partly true...

The Royal Navy deserves as much credit..and i say this an an ex member of the RAF!

I suspect, given the history of aircraft v surface vessels, that the German's could have managed it without total air superiority - they'd have lost a lot of men but once they got onshore I think it would have been only one result.

Fighter production
 

[QUOTE=Asturias56;11120498]The problem with Chamberlain isn't so much 1938 but 1939-40 when he proved incapable of fighting a war - the Norway Campaign was just the last in a series of really awful actions of his Govt. It was only after he was replaced that fighter production REALLY took off[


Churchill put Beaverbrook in charge of AC production, but the Castle Bromwich issues were not really solved until after June 1940 when Supermarine were involved. The very plant designed to produce 'hundreds' of Spitfires had failed to produce any for the BoB. On the other hand Hawkers were producing enough Hurricanes to replace those lost in France plus our own home defence needs. However after Hitler targeted London the Luftwaffe came closer to 12 Group and got clobbered by fresh squadrons and realised they had not 'destroyed our airforce' as required. The Hurricane numbers gave us a 'force' and were quite up to the job they were designed for, plus were in theatre from the start.

The contribution of the Hurricane has always been underplayed IMHO

The history of aircraft v surface vessels showed that aircraft were very much the winners. I'm thinking of the Prince of wales and the Repulse, Bismarck, Taranto and Pearl Harbour. Also the Wehrmacht was built around Blitzkreig and they had zero experience with amphibious warfare. Although the British army was weakened they were the defenders and would have had the advantage. I think any invasion of England would have been equivalent to the raid on Dieppe. It certainly would not have been anywhere near the planning, equipment and resources that went into D-Day just for the Neptune component.

With the limited resources the Germans had for an amphibious assault air superiority was absolutely required to allow the Germans to support any forces that were able to land on English soil. The RAF and the RN would still have been strong enough to support the army even in its depleted state.

" the planning, equipment and resources that went into D-Day just for the Neptune component."

but that was an attack on a fully equipped enemy which had had 4 years to prepare against invasion

In 1940 the British Army had lost almost all its heavy equipment in France and was totally disorganised - and the fixed defences were amateur. The RAF had fighters, which hadn't been adapted to carry bombs, but very little in the way of battlefield support. The Germans had a lot of kit and an airforce designed around battlefield support.

But the Germans were just not equipped for an amphibious landing - sure they had a few barges to transport infantry across the channel but they had no specialist infantry landing craft or heavy Landing Craft for tanks/trucks/vehicles.Can you imagine how difficult it would have been just to get the Barges onto a beach LOL - and off again to pick up more troops !
It would have been carnage in the Channel - we would have thrown everything against them (Navy and RAF).
I personally think that the Channel Barges were a Bluff to put pressure on Britain to give up the fight,without the support of the USA there is absolutely no way we could have invaded mainland Europe so the German Top Kneddies probably did not consider Britain a threat at that time and happy to leave Britain alone for the time being - perhaps to return to after successfully invading Russia.

But the logistics of transporting an assault force and then supplying them was essentially the same but on a smaller scale. The Germans had nothing in readiness and were only ever going to be able to cobble together the transport. Yes the Luftwaffe had a lot of kit but they were structured to achieve a breakthrough at the Schwerpunkt on a frontline in a land battle. Their paratroopers were decimated at Crete where the Commonwealth Forces were in a similar situation to the Home Defense of England. If Freyberg had held onto Maleme airfield then Crete would not have fallen. So extrapolate that relatively small battle to an invasion of England without air superiority and command of the sea.

Defender of the Empire
 

It did what It said on the tin
It was delivered when needed
It could cope with austere fields with that wonderful UC
It was a good gun platform
IT performed well in Norway and France before the BoB
We were never short of numbers
Hawkers did us proud

"The Germans had nothing in readiness"

Absolutely - I think they were pretty amazed at how fast things went after they pushed the door open.

It would have been a fairly far fetched bit of planning to say "We'll beat the French and evict the Brits in 6 weeks so we'd better have a contingency plan to grab Kent as well.............. "

IIRC, various theories were put to the test post war about the invasion.
I believe all came up with the same conclusion, it would not have succeeded.

They also tested the Big Wing theory after the BoB and find that it would not have worked. Somehow LM made his way up the ladder and was in charge of the Allied airforces for D-Day. Even Eisenhower couldn't put up with him.

Big Wings
 

They did not work that well after the BoB when we went on the offensive. When you look at the 'numbers' in some of the large operations over France they certainly do not reflect a positive count on results, and the Germans certainly were not ineffective with their tactics. Very easy to 'nibble' a large formation and B.... off than defend yourself against it. Hang on thats what 11 group did before !!!

Mainly because there are/were many more Spitfires available for films on the subject, so the public perception followed. My father flew Hurricanes in France and the BoB and prefered them for the gun platform and handling, but obviously moved on to Spitfires after. He is on the right in that photo of 32 lounging on the grass in front of a Hurricane.
DW

The Hurricane was thr more rugged, easier to work on and repair . Important when getting the numbers up the next day............

"Mainly because there are/were many more Spitfires available for films on the subject,"

I think it pre-dates that - even during the war "Spitfire" was an iconic name whereas "Hurricane" seems to have been mentioned in passing. And then of course there were the films about Mitchel etc

​​​​​​​My copy of "Britain's Wonderful Air Force" - published in 1942 - states "The Supermarine Spitfire... is almost certainly the world's finest single-seater fighter"

Well they would do in 1942....But you are prob right about the feeling at the time. The Spitfire was a leap forward in design and able to be developed continuously, where as the Hurricane was at its limit on older technology? Lot of PR too too, to keep moral up..

Spitfire was the 'word'
 

Despite being short of them at a desperate time; when the 'books' were written most of the authors were flying Spitfires. At the end of the war they could not even find a Hurricane to lead the BoB flypast over London, and then only one to lead the next. The two BoB films (both made at Kenley) struggled to get Hurricanes until Angels One Five borrowed five 11C's from Portugal to go with LF 363 & two MK1's. The later Reach For The Sky managed with 3,and the 1968 BoB 5 (poss 6)

Statics P2617 and L1592 were 1940 veterans and 1592 was operational during the Kenley raid (now in Science Museum)
When Pobjoy was an Air Cadet at Kenley and the RAF still held 'At Home' days in September, Hawkers Hurricane and Vickers Spitfire used to meet up in the Kenley circuit before running in to do their thing at Biggin. There was no danger from the Kenley Gliders, as us cadet winch drivers were occupied standing on the winch roof jumping up and down with glee.!!