The Luftwaffe in the Battle for Britain

[RichTO90]

Do you mean these figures:

are both confirmed destroyed and probably destroyed?

Well, it's been two years since I did it, so I'm going by memory. Of course I "remembered" that I hadn't totaled non-combat losses as well, so.... Nevermind, I forgot I have it on my home computer. It includes the three claim categories, which were:

Destroyed
Probably Destroyed
Damaged

I was trying to overcomplicate it before, or at least my memory was. So the report totals all claims regardless of the type of claim.

The old RAF Battle of Britain web site had the daily reports from the BoB with claims broken down into "destroyed", "probable" and "damaged". From memory, the "destroyed" added up to just under 2,500. "probable" and "damaged" combined to a bit less than that.

"Old"? It's still there and still has the reports. The difference may be the differing timeline, since they include July and October and the first 7 days of August?

[Hop]

includes the three claim categories, which were:

Destroyed
Probably Destroyed
Damaged

I was trying to overcomplicate it before, or at least my memory was. So the report totals all claims regardless of the type of claim.

Thanks. From my rather faulty memory, the total for the 3 categories on the RAF web site was about 4,500, which would be about right for the longer time period.

"Old"? It's still there and still has the reports.

So it is. It wasn't accessible from their main page last time I checked (weeks ago) because they are re-organising their site. Their new "history" section has a truly pathetic amount of content, and I'm not sure they are going to port all the old stuff over. They replaced the Airpower downloads with something far worse some time ago, as well.

[Andy H]

[quote="Kurfürst
I think this thread is already provided with an excerpt from the book of an excellent British RAF historian. Did you even bother to read it? Would Coventry or the damage done to the Supermarine Spitfire factory make a good case for you?[/quote]

Hi Kurfurst

The damage to the 2 Spitfire factories late in 1940 was severe, so much that only some 50odd planes were produced in October.

However this like other attacks wasn't maintained at a level to cause a strategic effect. This was a simple result of the fact that the LW hadn't a strategic viewpoint or the resources to pursue it. Maybe its only opinion but I would suggest that LW bombing caused 'strains' upon certain systems at certain times, rather than bombing the **** out of it.

Regards

Andy H

[C03LH0]

People, let's suppose that Germany would not attack Soviet Union, and could now fight england alone, and concentrate they efforts on the battle of britain.

Given this situation, do you think that the german would be sucessful on gaining air superiority over the british?!

[Michael Emrys]

People, let's suppose that Germany would not attack Soviet Union, and could now fight england alone, and concentrate they efforts on the battle of britain.

Given this situation, do you think that the german would be sucessful on gaining air superiority over the british?!

No. Simply put, the Germans were losing planes and pilots at a faster rate than the British. This could only get worse as the Empire Training Scheme kicked into high gear. Unless the Luftwaffe can pull some kind of rabbit out of the hat that they never did historically, the longer the BoB goes on, the more they are worn down.

Besides, Hitlerian Germany not attacking the USSR is hardly conceivable.

Michael

[C03LH0]

Yes they did lose planes at a faster rate, but, if i remember, the germans produced more planes during the war than the british.

Military aircraft of all types
United States = 324,750
Germany = 189,307
Soviet Union = 157,261
United Kingdom = 131,549
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
Italy = 11,122
Other Commonwealth = 3,081
Hungary = 1,046
Romania = 1,000


Fighter aircraft
United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Milward, Alan S., "War, economy, and society, 1939-1945", University of California Press (1979).
Overy, Richard, "Why the Allies Won (Paperback)", W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition (1997).


And the german industrial power was far greater than the british. If even fighting against three superpowers (usa,uk,soviet union) germany gave the allies a lot of work, i wonder the massacre that it would be if germany could focus in a single enemy.

With the german war machine now focused on the british, all the equipment,men,planes that were spent on the east could now be spent on this battle. I think it woudl be rather difficult for the british to win...

[LWD]

You would also have to look at pilot production and losses. I believe that was an even more serious limiting factor in the BOB. The Gemans had stripped thier training establishments while the British were building up theirs. The BOB also resulted in a rather lopsided pilot loss rate due to the Germans haveing to fight over hostile territory (which as far as pilots loss goes includes the channel) while the British were for the most part fighting over friendly territory. The longer flights by the Germans also meant more fatigue for the pilots, more wear and tear on them and the planes, more fuel consumed, and more non combat losses. Also consider that British (especially Commonwealth) aircraft production was significantly effected by the availability of US aircraft. I suspect Canada in particular could have produced a lot more if necessary but with major US aircraft production facilities a 15 minute flight from the border why bother?

[Michael Emrys]

Yes they did lose planes at a faster rate, but, if i remember, the germans produced more planes during the war than the british.

Military aircraft of all types
United States = 324,750
Germany = 189,307
Soviet Union = 157,261
United Kingdom = 131,549
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
Italy = 11,122
Other Commonwealth = 3,081
Hungary = 1,046
Romania = 1,000


Fighter aircraft
United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Those figures are misleading since they are totals for the whole war and German production didn't really get going until the last couple of years of the war. During the BoB and for the first two years afterward, the British production ramped up more quickly.

Another point that you fail to consider is that there was really no way that the Luftwaffe could destroy the RAF. If RAF losses had ever become truly unsustainable, they would have simply withdrawn their squadrons northward to bases out of reach of the short ranged aircraft of the Luftwaffe and rebuilt their formations there. This means more pain for the southeast of England, but it doesn't force either the RAF or the UK out of the war.

Michael

[Hop]

The figures are also wrong.

One of the sources listed is Overy, Why the Allies Won. In that book, Overy gives aircraft production as:

Germany - 117,881
Britain - 131,549

I've never seen a source to support Wikipedia's claim of 189,307 aircraft produced by Germany in the war. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey's post war report gives German aircraft production as 111,247 to the end of 1944 (the figures are close to those given by Overy, but not exactly the same, Overy says 7,540 aircraft were produced in 1945)

Regarding the number of fighters produced, it's true that British fighter production was lower over the entire course of the war. But that's because fighter production was cut back to allow for greater bomber production, because the need for fighters was much less. British fighter production peaked in the first quarter of 1943. British fighter production actually exceeded Germany's from late 1939 until the second quarter of 1943.

And bear in mind that the British not only produced more military aircraft than Germany, they produced a much higher proportion of large aircraft. When you compare the difference in weight of aircraft produced, the British lead is even more pronounced. From the start of 1941 to the end of 1944, Britain produced 614 million pounds (weight) of aircraft. Germany in the same period produced 470 million pounds. (source for the figures on fighter production and structure weight is the British Bombing Survey Unit)

The British also produced far more aero engines, 242,000 to Germany's 187,000.

Whichever way you look at it, Germany never had an advantage in aircraft production. Even in 1944, when the Germans produced more aircraft overall, they only did so by drastically reducing production of multi engined aircraft in favour of small, cheap fighters. In 1944 Britain produced 208 million pounds of aircraft compared to Germany's 174 million, and 57,000 aero engines compared to Germany's 55,000. (Britain also imported 11,000 engines in 1944)

[JodelFlieger]

Hello all,
Would a division of the German attack, into a more even "share" of attacks on Northern England/Scotland targets and SE England targets have made a difference? Should the LW have moved to night bombing earlier? Should the Me110 have been directed to fighter-bomber attacks earlier? Has the Battle ever been "wargamed" in the modern age by the British and German air forces?
regards
JF

[LWD]

From my understanding putting more effort into attacking Northern England and Scotland would have required a major restructuring of the LW. They didn't have the planes with the range to do this. Flying further especially over water is not a good way to reduce operational losses especially for damaged planes making the return flight. Night bombing was generally not very effective. Take a good look at the resources the Western Allies put into attacking Germany later in the war and how effective that was then take a look at the resources Germany had available.

[phylo_roadking]

Confirmed. Bomber Command had to resort to area bombing of industrial workers' housing as a designated target in its re-expressed targeting doctrine of early 1942, in order to attack German industry by night; the 1941 Butt, Lindemann and Dehousing reports showed how poor previous Bomber Command night raids had been at damaging targets. AND they had to mark these by Pathfinders to designate targets of several square miles. All this after the RAF had been preparing for YEARS to carry out separate night-and day-bombing campaigns and developed the longrange early-war twin-engined bombers to reach western Germany at altitude and at night. The LW had a tactical strength that was suddenly tasked with a strategic operation in night-bombing that in the autumn of 1940 it was unsuited for both in the operational range of aircraft and the bombloads they could carry.

[Norm Englbrecht]

Intelligence is the key to success in battle. I just finished re-reading a book by F.W. Winterbotham, CBE titled "The Ultra Secret" published in 1975. Winterbotham was in charge of British special intelligence during the early part of WWII.

The Brits has a German encryption machine, Enigma, in their hands from the start. They could read all German military communication traffic. During BoB they had the flight plans and target orders given by OK Luftwaffe by the use of this machione. This information guidedthem in their defense actions.

[JodelFlieger]

Hi there
They attacked from Scandinavia in daylight, against Northern targets, with Me110 escorts(with no tailgunners to save weight) and were thrashed, but they were certainly capable of reaching any point in the UK or Ireland, as evidenced by the bombing of Belfast, from the Southern route.Their bombing techniques were better than the RAFs and the RAF's night-fighter force was immature, which would have justified the risk.I'd agree that the long overwater sector mitigated against taking on the RAF in daylight but a night campaign against Edinburgh/Glasgow (the most important targets in Scotland, except for the RN's ports) might have forced the RAF to move aircraft North in response, thus thinning the ranks available in the SE.
I don't think Ultra was as perfect a solution as people might think.It was part of the solution , but not all of it.I'd venture to suggest that radio listening/interception was of more immediate value in the short time period available.
regards
JF

[LWD]

But the planes that could reach the North were limited and in at least some cases had to cut their bomb load. There were a fair number of fighters in the north also from what I recall. Might be a good way to break in new pilots having them fly vs Me110s and bombers. Even if the Germans had better bombing techniques they also had planes that were far inferior bomb haulers so they'd have to be phenomenally better to make it worth while.