Battle of Britain

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Guaporense » 15 May 2010 18:06

About the BoB:

This battle represented a blunder in the part of the Germans in the sense that they expected Britain to break easily. The fact is that the airforce is not a magical war winning wand and that Britain was not a country without the capacity to replace losses.

After the campaign in France, the Germans though that Britain was in a hopeless situation and that they would accept an armistice. They offered it and Britain refused. Hitler probably thought something in these lines: "These stupid Brit's don't understand their situation, let's send the Luftwaffe to bomb'en and maybe they change their minds about facing an enemy that they cannot defeat."

They sent the Luftwaffe, lost 1890 aircraft, the Brit's lost 1550 and 60,000 civilians were death, and Britain didn't surrender nor give up in intercepting German sorties over their island. Even though the RAF was inferior to the Luftwaffe at the time, it was good enough to inflict heavy losses on sorties flew over their territory. Also, Britain was an industrialized country, capable of producing large quantities of fighter craft, they pushed themselves in the second half of 1940 and produced over 400 single engine fighters per month, while Germany made ~250. While it is obvious that air raids cannot defeat a country by itself, the Allies made an effort 20 times greater than Germany later in the war and failed as well. And the kriegsmarine didn't have the logistics necessary to conduct an invasion in 1940.

Also, after the battle of France the Germans started to prepare their armed forces to face the USSR, as they recruited 2 million men between these two campaigns and trained their men for the final battle with the "Bolsheviks" for the lebensraum. Britain was a minor preoccupation compared to the USSR, a country with a population of 200 million and a larger heavy industry base than Britain, and that shared a continuous piece of land with Germany. As result, Germany didn't increase they fighter production for the battle of Britain, as the bulk of aircraft production consisted of bombers (see: http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/150/122/0) and the bulk of increase in manpower mobilized for war got into the armed forces. The distribution of resource expenditure reveals that Germany didn't make a serious effort at the battle of Britain as if Britain was a country with a weak airforce and without the capacity to replace losses.

*Note that the losses of single engine fighters were lower for Germany than Britain, Germany lost 533 Bf-109 and Britain lost 958 Hurricanes and Spitfires (source: http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html). So their lower production was partially compensated for lower losses.

Since Britain didn't have fuel shortages like the Luffwaffe and vulnerable synthetic fuel plans, like Germany in 1944, it would be nigh impossible to obtain air superiority over Britain by simple air attack. Total air superiority is obtained when the enemy airforce doesn't regularly intercept your sorties. Is impossible for the luftwaffe to do this to britain in 1940. The Allies obtained air superiority mainly because they bombed the fuel plants in may, 44, also the kind of attrition that they imposed over German pilots was the result of years of air combat, years that Germany didn't have since they were planning to attack the USSR after resolving the conflict in western Europe.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12146
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by ljadw » 15 May 2010 19:22

Guaporense wrote:About the BoB:

This battle represented a blunder in the part of the Germans in the sense that they expected Britain to break easily. The fact is that the airforce is not a magical war winning wand and that Britain was not a country without the capacity to replace losses.

After the campaign in France, the Germans though that Britain was in a hopeless situation and that they would accept an armistice. They offered it and Britain refused. Hitler probably thought something in these lines: "These stupid Brit's don't understand their situation, let's send the Luftwaffe to bomb'en and maybe they change their minds about facing an enemy that they cannot defeat."

They sent the Luftwaffe, lost 1890 aircraft, the Brit's lost 1550 and 60,000 civilians were death, and Britain didn't surrender nor give up in intercepting German sorties over their island. Even though the RAF was inferior to the Luftwaffe at the time, it was good enough to inflict heavy losses on sorties flew over their territory. Also, Britain was an industrialized country, capable of producing large quantities of fighter craft, they pushed themselves in the second half of 1940 and produced over 400 single engine fighters per month, while Germany made ~250. While it is obvious that air raids cannot defeat a country by itself, the Allies made an effort 20 times greater than Germany later in the war and failed as well. And the kriegsmarine didn't have the logistics necessary to conduct an invasion in 1940.

Also, after the battle of France the Germans started to prepare their armed forces to face the USSR, as they recruited 2 million men between these two campaigns and trained their men for the final battle with the "Bolsheviks" for the lebensraum. Britain was a minor preoccupation compared to the USSR, a country with a population of 200 million and a larger heavy industry base than Britain, and that shared a continuous piece of land with Germany. As result, Germany didn't increase they fighter production for the battle of Britain, as the bulk of aircraft production consisted of bombers (see: http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/150/122/0) and the bulk of increase in manpower mobilized for war got into the armed forces. The distribution of resource expenditure reveals that Germany didn't make a serious effort at the battle of Britain as if Britain was a country with a weak airforce and without the capacity to replace losses.

*Note that the losses of single engine fighters were lower for Germany than Britain, Germany lost 533 Bf-109 and Britain lost 958 Hurricanes and Spitfires (source: http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html). So their lower production was partially compensated for lower losses.

Since Britain didn't have fuel shortages like the Luffwaffe and vulnerable synthetic fuel plans, like Germany in 1944, it would be nigh impossible to obtain air superiority over Britain by simple air attack. Total air superiority is obtained when the enemy airforce doesn't regularly intercept your sorties. Is impossible for the luftwaffe to do this to britain in 1940. The Allies obtained air superiority mainly because they bombed the fuel plants in may, 44, also the kind of attrition that they imposed over German pilots was the result of years of air combat, years that Germany didn't have since they were planning to attack the USSR after resolving the conflict in western Europe.
although,generally 8-) ,your post is not bad,I have some points to make
1) you are mixing the BOB and the Blitz,which are totally different
2)the thoughts of Hitler:let's bomb them,are wrong.This happened only from september on,when sealion was abandoned
3) the Germans did not train their men for the final battle with the Bolshevists
4)(my principal objection :wink: :idea: ):the Germans were planning to attack the USSR after resolving the conflict in western Europe:maybe,but when?One can also argue (with more grounds)that they were planning to attack the USSR TO resolve the conflict in western Europe,and before the US was participating effectively in the conflict .

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 May 2010 01:38

the Germans though that Britain was in a hopeless situation and that they would accept an armistice. They offered it...
Hitler made three public speeches to domestic audiences saying he didn't want war with the British. These were NOT "peace offers" - peace offers are when diplomats approach diplomats with offers, politicos make direct public approaches, that sort of thing. Hitler didn't ever understand why the British didn't accept - because he couldn't understand, he who was used to an audience hanging on his every word....that he hadn't offered anything actually TO Britain :lol:
Even though the RAF was inferior to the Luftwaffe at the time, it was good enough...
Only inferior in numbers... :wink:
they pushed themselves in the second half of 1940 and produced over 400 single engine fighters per month, while Germany made ~250.
Actually, they were outproducing Germany at this rate in the FIRST half of 1940 too.
While it is obvious that air raids cannot defeat a country by itself
ONLY TO US. It certainly wasn't obvious to anyone at the time...they'd been preached at for years that air power COULD win a war.
Britain lost 958 Hurricanes and Spitfires
Actually - your source is wrong. Fighter Command lost 915 aircraft of ALL types, including aircraft destroyed on the ground (RT Bickers Battle Of Britain, 1990)
Total air superiority is obtained when the enemy airforce doesn't regularly intercept your sorties.
That's just plain wrong.

Total air superiority is obtained when the enemy airforce doesn't intercept your sorties AT ALL.

PARTIAL air superiority is obtained when the enemy airforce doesn't regularly intercept your sorties, but still does so on an irregular basis.
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
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Peter H » 18 May 2010 08:21

The latest discussions on the Great Depression now have been moved to the Economy section:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=166243

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Andy H » 20 May 2010 16:30

G wrote:-
let's send the Luftwaffe to bomb'en……….. 60,000 civilians were death
Hi, well the figure during the Blitz (to which you pertain) was nearer 43,000. Your figure represents (with an additional few ‘000) the total British civilian deaths during the war up till 1945

Regards

Andy H

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by RichTO90 » 20 May 2010 18:21

Guaporense wrote:Also, after the battle of France the Germans started to prepare their armed forces to face the USSR, as they recruited 2 million men between these two campaigns and trained their men for the final battle with the "Bolsheviks" for the lebensraum.
Your data remains as inaccurate and poorly sourced as ever I see... :lol: :roll:

Year/Feldheer/W-SS/Foreign/Wehrmacht Total (Mueller-Hillebrand EuCom MS #P-005, Personnel and Administration)

1939/2,740,000/35,000/0/4,690,000
1940/3,650,000/50,000/0/6,600,000
1941/3,800,000/150,000/20,000/8,254,000
1942/4,000,000/230,000/70,000/9,658,000
1943/4,250,000/450,000/100,000/11,120,000
1944/4,000,000/600,000/350,000/12,240,000
1945/3,800,000/830,000/71,000/9,101,000

They did nothing of the sort; rather, the Wehrmacht expanded as mobilization continued as the Germans attempted to keep pace with the expanding war. Nor was the expansion 2-million men, it was 1,654,000 overall and just 250,000 where it counted in the Feldheer and Waffen-SS.
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Guaporense » 23 May 2010 03:24

Andy H wrote:G wrote:-
let's send the Luftwaffe to bomb'en……….. 60,000 civilians were death
Hi, well the figure during the Blitz (to which you pertain) was nearer 43,000. Your figure represents (with an additional few ‘000) the total British civilian deaths during the war up till 1945

Regards

Andy H
Wikipedia is not the best source for civilian deaths. But at least it is on the same order of magnitude.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 May 2010 00:45

But at least it is on the same order of magnitude
Only an economist could come up with THAT answer :roll:

The real fact Andy was making was that your figure was wrong by almost 50%. Which is a HUGE error margin...
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...

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Von Schadewald » 25 May 2010 23:15

If the Germans win the BOB and the Luftwaffe are able to roam at will over all of SE England, just how long is it before Churchill, who would never surrender, orders the RAF bombers at bases out of reach on the N.Sea coast, on a virtual one-way mission to drop gas on German cities, and would he be obeyed?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by LWD » 26 May 2010 12:56

Von Schadewald wrote:If the Germans win the BOB and the Luftwaffe are able to roam at will over all of SE England, just how long is it before Churchill, who would never surrender, orders the RAF bombers at bases out of reach on the N.Sea coast, on a virtual one-way mission to drop gas on German cities,
Sometime around 1994.
and would he be obeyed?
Probably, at least by some.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8848
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 May 2010 13:45

Depends on if it is part of some strategy with a good chance of a decisive outcome favoring Britian. No use making that move if it leads to German reactions that make the UK worse off than before.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 01:39
Location: New Zealand

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by JonS » 27 May 2010 02:20

Guaporense wrote:
Andy H wrote:
let's send the Luftwaffe to bomb'en……….. 60,000 civilians were death
Hi, well the figure during the Blitz (to which you pertain) was nearer 43,000. Your figure represents (with an additional few ‘000) the total British civilian deaths during the war up till 1945
Wikipedia is not the best source for civilian deaths.
Actually, Wiki is fine. The Battle Of Britian entry lists British civilian deaths as 23,002 (July to Dec 1940, so a period longer than just the BoB). I have no idea where you got the 60k figure from - Wiki lists total British civilian deaths during WWII (ie, from all causes, across all 6 years) was 67,100, which is opretty close to what you managed to come up with.

The problem is not Wiki. The actual problem is, as always, that you either
a) have no clue what you're talking about, or
b) are deliberately lying, hoping that nobody will notice.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Von Schadewald » 27 May 2010 11:28

Harris thought that by raising Berlin from end to end he would end the war.

WI the Germans also thought that by bombing solely London, the British would surrender ie all bombers focus on London only. London ends up being much more heavily damaged than in OTL, with whole boroughs resembling the City in devastation, evacuation of a large part of the population occurs, and deaths reach 200,000.

But as with Harris, bombing a city fails to end the war.
Last edited by Von Schadewald on 27 May 2010 11:44, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12146
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2010 11:41

200000????
London was not the only city bombarded,there was also Liverpool,Coventry ...............

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Battle of Britain

Post by Von Schadewald » 27 May 2010 11:46

I am suggesting that the Germans bomb no other city or target except the Heart of the Empire. If they can pull off some 500 bomber night raids on London, the British will be shaken.

Return to “What if”