Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 20 Oct 2014, 20:24

What other options did Germany have against Britain after the Fall of France? I know there were elements of the Luftwaffe pushing a aerial mining strategy like what the USAAF later did against Japan (Operation Starvation), as pre-war war gaming against Britain had demonstrated it as the best option. Doing it at night would give the Luftwaffe an advantage, as the RAF was seriously lacking in night defenses in 1940. What other options were on the table?

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#2

Post by BDV » 20 Oct 2014, 20:54

One would be to aggressively pursue, in close cooperation with Italy, and using Italian colonies, the British Colonial Empire in the Med, West Africa, and Middle East. Also, a serious, persistent, focused blockade running effort.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#3

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Oct 2014, 22:10

STG, it's worth remembering that noone actually viewed it as an "option" to be chosen among others; Johh Rea's Battle of Britain:New Perpectives notes that when Luftwaffe officers were later asked who ordered them to start operations against the UK...it was more the case that noone told them NOT to! 8O It seems that as soon as LW squadrons repositioned within sortie range of the UK, and had recovered after the Battle of France...three weeks or so - they began operations against the UK spontaneously at Luftflotte level, roughly according to Hitler's various directives on the campaign against Britain as they stood at that point.

It wasn't until the very first week of August, and several weeks after the failure of Hitler's aborted attempt to "make peace" pushed him into Directive No.16 for Sealion, that Goering hosted his very first planning meeting at Kkarin Hall. At THIS point, LW bombers had been making regular daylight raids against the UK for a month!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#4

Post by stg 44 » 20 Oct 2014, 22:18

phylo_roadking wrote:STG, it's worth remembering that noone actually viewed it as an "option" to be chosen among others; Johh Rea's Battle of Britain:New Perpectives notes that when Luftwaffe officers were later asked who ordered them to start operations against the UK...it was more the case that noone told them NOT to! 8O It seems that as soon as LW squadrons repositioned within sortie range of the UK, and had recovered after the Battle of France...three weeks or so - they began operations against the UK spontaneously at Luftflotte level, roughly according to Hitler's various directives on the campaign against Britain as they stood at that point.

It wasn't until the very first week of August, and several weeks after the failure of Hitler's aborted attempt to "make peace" pushed him into Directive No.16 for Sealion, that Goering hosted his very first planning meeting at Kkarin Hall. At THIS point, LW bombers had been making regular daylight raids against the UK for a month!
Okay, so the LF were acting out without orders; what happens when the LW general staff and Hitler start looking at options? What are their other options?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#5

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Oct 2014, 22:31

That's my point -
what happens when the LW general staff and Hitler start looking at options?
They didn't! Goering didn't bother for 5-6 weeks...and Hitler went sightseeing for three weeks after the Fall of France! :lol: Hitler expected the British to come to see sense...and at the same time had been told it was happening - hence his strange insistence at the end of June/start of July that he was waiting for a change of government in London and would get word via the Swedes.

Se we can see the Sportsplatz speech in July as his alternative to that not happening...and when the British rejected THAT, that pretty much forced his hand on invasion.

Read the Directive(s); they tell you a lot about what Hitler saw as his options at various times.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#7

Post by Appleknocker27 » 20 Oct 2014, 23:02

phylo_roadking wrote:That's my point -
what happens when the LW general staff and Hitler start looking at options?
They didn't! Goering didn't bother for 5-6 weeks...and Hitler went sightseeing for three weeks after the Fall of France! :lol: Hitler expected the British to come to see sense...and at the same time had been told it was happening - hence his strange insistence at the end of June/start of July that he was waiting for a change of government in London and would get word via the Swedes.

Se we can see the Sportsplatz speech in July as his alternative to that not happening...and when the British rejected THAT, that pretty much forced his hand on invasion.

Read the Directive(s); they tell you a lot about what Hitler saw as his options at various times.
In retrospect it seems the LW's best option was to cancel Adlertag and never fight the BoB beyond the Channel. Transferring assets to Italy and taking Malta out seems a wise alternative to pointlessly attacking Britain.
"Luftwaffe losses from 10 July to 30 October 1940 total 1,652 aircraft, including 229 twin- and 533 single-engined fighters", to which perhaps 80+% could be mitigated if the LW doesn't attack Britain.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Oct 2014, 23:24


Look again at them ;) You need to be very careful with Hitler's specific words...
Since England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, shows no signs of being ready to come to an understanding, I have decided to prepare a landing operation against England and, if necessary, to carry it out.

The aim of this operation will be to eliminate the English homeland as a base for the prosecution of the war against Germany and, if necessary, to occupy it completely.
This is him running out of other options; the supposed coup didn't materialise, the British didn't react...well, they did, but not as HE expected! :lol: ...to his peace "offer".

But he's still hedging his bets! 8O
Since England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, shows no signs of being ready to come to an understanding, I have decided to prepare a landing operation against England and, if necessary, to carry it out.

The aim of this operation will be to eliminate the English homeland as a base for the prosecution of the war against Germany and, if necessary, to occupy it completely.
So the important thing is why he was hedging his bets. And you can see it in Directive 17...
In order to establish the necessary conditions for the final conquest of England I intend to intensify air and sea warfare against the English homeland. I therefore order as follows :

1. The German Air Force is to overpower the English Air Force with all the forces at its command, in the shortest possible time. The attacks are to be directed primarily against flying units, their ground installations, and their supply organisations, but also against the aircraft industry, including that manufacturing antiaircraft equipment.

2. After achieving temporary or local air superiority the air war is to be continued against ports, in particular against stores of food, and also against stores of provisions in the interior of the country.

Attacks on south coast ports will be made on the smallest possible scale, in view of our own forthcoming operations.

3. On the other hand, air attacks on enemy warships and merchant ships may be reduced except where some particularly favourable target happens to present itself, where such attacks would lend additional effectiveness to those mentioned in paragraph 2, or where such attacks are necessary for the training of air crews for further operations.

4. The intensified air warfare will be carried out in such a way that the Air Force can at any time be called upon to give adequate support to naval operations against suitable targets. It must also be ready to take part in full force in 'Undertaking Sea Lion'.

5. I reserve to myself the right to decide on terror attacks as measures of reprisal.

6. The intensification of the air war may begin on or after 5th August. The exact time is to be decided by the Air Force after the completion of preparations and in the light of the weather.

The Navy is authorised to begin the proposed intensified naval war at the same time.
"...the air war is to be continued against ports..." - in other words, there was ALREADY an air war under way. Goering may not have been playing much of a role in planning it as I noted before...but there's a good reason why the Luftwaffe started bombing Britain three weeks or so after the fall of France when noone had ordered them to...

...because someone HAD! But as far back as the 29th of November 1939 8O Unfortunately, that site's list of Directives is too short. Find and read Directive No. 9.

THAT tells you what exactly the air war was that was to be continued once the Luftwaffe had achieved the immediate needs of preparing for the invasion. It's one that people often forget...as you can see once you start looking for it online! It sets out what the Luftwaffe was to do unless it was temporarily distracted from it by more immediate needs, like invasions, etc. What he's saying in Directive No.17 is "do what's necessary for Directive No. 16...then go back to the provisions of No.9 - which you've been carrying where possible - but be ready for Sealion and don't do anything in relation to No.9 that gets in Sealion's way".

It also lists what the Kriegsmarine was to do as part of the campaign against England :wink: But it had got majorly distracted by the needs...and losses...of WESERUBUNG etc. But on the Fall of france the uboat fleet had been recalled and serviced, and was now ready to resume intensified operations...until IT was needed for its part in Sealion.

I can't find an online copy...and it's three pages long so I'm not going to start typing it all out! I have a copy of this...http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hitlers ... 1843410140 ...that a bargain bookshop chain here in the UK sold for £2 - or roughly $3! - a couple of years ago. I can't believe Barnes and Noble are looking EIGHTY DOLLARS for the exactly the same paperback edition!!!
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 20 Oct 2014, 23:31, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#9

Post by stg 44 » 20 Oct 2014, 23:25

The Kanalkampf before Adlertag wasn't cheap and the LW was bested by the RAF in terms of losses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanalkampf
Casualties and losses
RAF:
115 fighters destroyed
42 fighters damaged
71 pilots killed in action
19 pilots wounded in action
4 pilots missing in action[N 1]
Royal Navy:
35 transport ships sunk
7 fishing vessels
a number of naval vessels
4 destroyers
losses include some neutral ships[3]
at least 176 sailors killed
~300 casualties in total

Luftwaffe:
80 fighters destroyed
36 fighter aircraft damaged
22 Dive bombers destroyed
22 Dive bombers damaged
100 medium bombers destroyed
33 medium bombers damaged
13 naval aircraft destroyed
1 naval aircraft damaged
201 airmen killed
75 airmen wounded
277 airmen missing
16 airmen captured[N 2]
Kriegsmarine:
~4 E-Boats[5]

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#10

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Oct 2014, 23:42

The Kanalkampf before Adlertag wasn't cheap and the LW was bested by the RAF in terms of losses
Not necessarily :wink: IF you go with the popular idea that the Kanalkampf was the Germans' way of bringing the RAF's fighters to battle, then...

115 British fighter losses vs. 80 German ;)

All of them expensively trained over a long period of time, nearly all of them Eleven Group aircraft and pilots...and all adding to the depredations to Fighter Command in France and over Dunkirk. It also demonstrated to the RAF the importance of gaining a height advantage on the enemy...something they DIDN'T get when flying from forward dispersal stations right down on the coast. On several notable occasions Eleven Group squadrons operating from those fields took major losses by not getting off the ground early enough to gain height on Luftwaffe fighters - which were still "free hunting" at that point - despite having early warning from radar. Trying to operate that close to the coast meant they got early warning ok....just not enough of it.

The problem was however that the Germans didn't like the Kanalkampf; their fighter pilots were exhausted, and when they went down they went down in the Channel - whereas RAF pilots had an evens chance of coming down in the Channel or over England...with a better-organised recovery system for downed pilots. Luftwaffe fighter pilots were nervously exhausted BEFORE the real BoB began in the second week of August; they called it "Channel sickness"....
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#11

Post by stg 44 » 20 Oct 2014, 23:51

I suppose if you ignore the 100 medium bombers, 33 dive bombers, and 13 naval aircraft the LW lost Germany came out slightly ahead in terms of fighter losses, but the issue wasn't just to destroy RAF fighters in combat, but also to sustainably defeat them on the ground and the Kanalkampf demonstrated that it could not be done cheaply or sustainably with those sorts of losses.

john2
Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: 04 Feb 2003, 00:25
Location: north carolina

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#12

Post by john2 » 20 Oct 2014, 23:55

In reply to the OP. The problem is that one would have to be able to see into the future and know the battle of Britain wouldn't work. As phylo said Hitler at first hoped for a coup so he wouldn't have to fight Britain. Beyond this there was some talk about building a "continental block" by involving Spain, Italy and possibly France - such a strategy would focus on the med and the suez but these were considered backup plans in case the assault on Britain failed. Everyone basically felt that Britain was weak and that if they kept up the pressure they might force a surrender. The only exception to this was Hitler who briefly suggested they invade Russia in the fall - presumably the battle of Britain would not have been fought then. The generals however talked Hitler out of this saying they had to wait until spring.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#13

Post by phylo_roadking » 21 Oct 2014, 00:01

You're forgetting that BOTH sides saw the kanalkampf differently ;)

The RAF saw it as a defensive battle to be fought by their fighters...with every loss having to be replaced by lesser-trained aircrew - after already having lost over a third of Fighter Command's monoplane fighter strength and pilots even before the end of the Battle of France...

The Luftwaffe saw it as the continuation from shorter range and by day of the Directive no.9 campaign...but its fighter pilots, who were NOT yet providing close escort to the LW's bombers, saw the bomber campaign as a way of bringing the RAF up to fight. This was what "freehunting" was about - the bombers drew up Fighter Command, and the "freehunting" LW fighters....not hampered by being tied to the bombers...could fight them on equal or better than equal terms...

Which was another painful lesson the RAF learned during the kanalkampf; they began it sending up flights of three fighters, or wings of a couple of flights, to disrupt much larger incoming raids, to scatter bombers over the shop and pick off what they could...but the LW put more fighters in the air in formations than Fighter Command did, and those "penny packet" Fighter Command sorties found themselves outnumbered on many occasions. And - as with the lack of height in hand - suffered accordingly.

And don't forget...
I suppose if you ignore the 100 medium bombers, 33 dive bombers, and 13 naval aircraft the LW lost Germany came out slightly ahead in terms of fighter losses, but the issue wasn't just to destroy RAF fighters in combat, but also to sustainably defeat them on the ground and the Kanalkampf demonstrated that it could not be done cheaply or sustainably with those sorts of losses.
The Luftwaffe wasn't trying to do that during the kanalkampf; the giveaway is the word "kanal...". The campaign against RAF airfields and aerodromes didn't start in earnest until the main BoB in early August.

Also...
but the issue wasn't just to destroy RAF fighters in combat
No it wasn't - not when the British were outproducing the Germans in monoplane fighters right then, 3 to 2...the issue was the loss of trained pilots.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#14

Post by stg 44 » 21 Oct 2014, 00:23

The Kanalkampf was about controlling the Channel by day and probe Britain's aerial defenses. Later the BoB became about killing the RAF in the air and on the ground, as per Fuhrer directive 17. Prior to that the LW wasn't trying to kill the RAF FC, just shut down shipping in the Channel, as per FB 9.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Alternatives to the Battle of Britain?

#15

Post by phylo_roadking » 21 Oct 2014, 00:34

The Kanalkampf was about controlling the Channel by day and probe Britain's aerial defenses. Later the BoB became about killing the RAF in the air and on the ground, as per Fuhrer directive 17
...then returning to the Directive No. 9 campaign;
1. The German Air Force is to overpower the English Air Force with all the forces at its command, in the shortest possible time. The attacks are to be directed primarily against flying units, their ground installations, and their supply organisations, but also against the aircraft industry, including that manufacturing antiaircraft equipment.

2. After achieving temporary or local air superiority the air war is to be continued against ports, in particular against stores of food, and also against stores of provisions in the interior of the country
In other words - AFTER you've carried out 1. above, go back to what you were doing - the air war as specificied in Directive No.9.
Prior to that the LW wasn't trying to kill the RAF FC, just shut down shipping in the Channel, as per FB 9.
The Luftwaffe's mission planners, and bombing theorists were. The fighter squadron commanders and aces were doing what THEY did at that exact point in the war...fight fighters. They didn't provide close escort yet....they were very soon to begin do so...but not yet. The events of the first week of operations in August not only changed everything for the Luftwaffe as a whole...the events and how they had to react to them stopped their fighters being as effective as they had been in July.

Had the Luftwaffe bitten the bullet and realised that it only looked like Fighter Command could be everywhere at once :P...Fighter Command would have continued through August trying to take on two separately-operating Luftwaffe capabilities - one of which had already proved superior to Fighter Command tactics in July.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”