Seems statistically the Luftwaffe could have won

Switching to the cities has always been pointed out as a massive error. Now throw in if the General who was pushing 4 engine bombers hadn't been killed in a crash a few years earlier and heavy bombers had been available...
 
George said:
Switching to the cities has always been pointed out as a massive error. Now throw in if the General who was pushing 4 engine bombers hadn't been killed in a crash a few years earlier and heavy bombers had been available...
Click to expand...

I assume you mean Walther Wever, died about 3 years before the war began.

I really don't buy the idea that strategic bombers would have made the difference, the problem for the Luftwaffe over Britain was not that it couldn't destroy buildings, airfields or enemy aircraft with the aircraft it had it was that it was operating over hostile territory with next to no chance of recovering downed pilots unlike allied pilots who were downed over occupied territories and a generally sympathetic populace, therefore it was always going to be a war of attrition that it couldn't win given that Britain had the Commonwealth to provide replacement aircrew.

Also given the limitations on the range of Luftwaffe aircraft the British could have afforded to withdraw from Southern England and still maintain air superiority from airfields further north combine that with the overwhelming disparity between the Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine Britain was never under any threat.

Germany's better plan would have been to focus on Uboats to take the war to Britain and send a full strength Air Force against Russia.
 
Last edited:
"the problem for the Luftwaffe over Britain was not that it couldn't destroy buildings, airfields or enemy aircraft with the aircraft it had it was that it was operating over hostile territory with next to no chance of recovering downed pilots unlike allied pilots who were downed over occupied territories and a generally sympathetic populace. certainly a problem, but if they had something like the B-17 most everything would have been in reach. yes, no amphib capability to do an invasion. Like the US German torpedoes had lots of fuse failures that reduced effectiveness early on. 1 attack might have killed Sir Winston before becoming P.M.
 
George said:
but if they had something like the B-17 most everything would have been in reach. yes, no amphib capability to do an invasion. Like the US German torpedoes had lots of fuse failures that reduced effectiveness early on. 1 attack might have killed Sir Winston before becoming P.M.
Click to expand...


But the two of those points are linked, there is little to no point in bombing something if there was no chance you would ever invade it.


Had Germany not bombed British cities would the RAF have ever bombed German cities, it was necessity that drove the development of the Mosquito and Lancaster etc. without that necessity they may never have needed to be built and German cities free of bombing would have freed up a lot of resources to the Eastern Front.


I remain convinced that while the RAF may get the credit for winning the battle of Britian it wasnt RAF air superiority that prevented an invasion as the Luftwaffe could have maintained air superiority over any invasion lanes but rather the Royal Navy which ensured there wouldnt be an invasion.
 
MontyB said:
I remain convinced that while the RAF may get the credit for winning the battle of Britian it wasnt RAF air superiority that prevented an invasion as the Luftwaffe could have maintained air superiority over any invasion lanes but rather the Royal Navy which ensured there wouldnt be an invasion.
Click to expand...

Correct, but what is forgotten, up to the Battle of Britain, Britain suffered loss after loss, Dunkirk, Norway etc, winning the Battle gave the British people hope. Up to that point the Luftwaffe had it all their own way, it put the Luftwaffe on notice that the RAF wasn't a push over they thought it would be. It was a brilliant propaganda victory.

Sadly too many pilots were lost, some on their first sortie, some as young as 19.

Hugh Dowding and Keith Parks fought the Battle exactly as it should have been fought, despite Douglas Baders criticism and his so called big wing theory, which by the way, did not work. Despite this, Hugh Dowding was sacked being replaced by Leigh Mallory.

Keith Parks took over the defence of Malta, whom again, fought the battle brilliantly.
 
Last edited:
I am certainly not arguing that the British fought the BoB incorrectly but I do believe it was a battle that the Germans did not need to fight as they could not have crossed the channel even with air superiority.


I think the sadest part regarding Keith Parks is how few New Zealanders even know who he was, he has largely been forgotten in this country.
 
MontyB said:
I am certainly not arguing that the British fought the BoB incorrectly but I do believe it was a battle that the Germans did not need to fight as they could not have crossed the channel even with air superiority.


I think the sadest part regarding Keith Parks is how few New Zealanders even know who he was, he has largely been forgotten in this country.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the Battle of Britain was fought by the Germans because of Herman Goering's guarantees that the Luftwaffe could defeat the RAF in a matter of weeks. As we all know, the Luftwaffe had extremely experienced and well trained pilots and twice the number of fighters compared to the RAF, while RAF fighter pilots in the beginning were no where near as capable, but lessons were learned and put into effect. Of course RADAR was a huge help.

Keith Parks is considered a hero in the UK, a brilliant tactician, Bader and Leigh Mallory don't even come close.

Perhaps you should start some sort of campaign in the local press putting Keith Parks in the eye of the public with his exploits
 
BritinAfrica said:
In my opinion the Battle of Britain was fought by the Germans because of Herman Goering's guarantees that the Luftwaffe could defeat the RAF in a matter of weeks. As we all know, the Luftwaffe had extremely experienced and well trained pilots and twice the number of fighters compared to the RAF, while RAF fighter pilots in the beginning were no where near as capable, but lessons were learned and put into effect. Of course RADAR was a huge help.

Keith Parks is considered a hero in the UK, a brilliant tactician, Bader and Leigh Mallory don't even come close.

Perhaps you should start some sort of campaign in the local press putting Keith Parks in the eye of the public with his exploits
Click to expand...

I am going to argue a point here.
I think the idea of an experienced Luftwaffe is more allied propaganda than fact, a lot of people use the condor legion as the training ground for the Luftwaffe but it comprised less than 150 aircraft and included transport aircraft.
Basically, the Luftwaffe had some experienced pilots and learned a few lessons in Spain (not enough to ditch the Ju-87 though) but that was about it.

I would also argue that had the Luftwaffe continued to attack airfields and radar installations it probably would have won.

I still think that had they focused on coastal airfields and shipping in conjunction with the submarine fleet they could have defeated Britain with only a fraction of the losses.
 
MontyB said:
Basically, the Luftwaffe had some experienced pilots and learned a few lessons in Spain (not enough to ditch the Ju-87 though) but that was about it.
Click to expand...

The JU87 was brilliant for its intended design as part of a "BlitzKrieg," supporting ground forces, but up against fighter aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire it was next to useless.

MontyB said:
I would also argue that had the Luftwaffe continued to attack airfields and radar installations it probably would have won.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, even if all of 11 group were taken out by bombing, there was still 12 group to contend with, then take into account the short range of the BF109 the bombers would have been slaughtered by 12 group fighters when German fighters turned for home.

MontyB said:
I still think that had they focused on coastal airfields and shipping in conjunction with the submarine fleet they could have defeated Britain with only a fraction of the losses.
Click to expand...

Again I don't agree. Coastal shipping was not vital for supply when the railways were tasked with the same job.
 
BritinAfrica said:
The JU87 was brilliant for its intended design as part of a "BlitzKrieg," supporting ground forces, but up against fighter aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire it was next to useless.
Click to expand...

Which is in part my original point, the Luftwaffe was never meant to be a strategic air Force it was designed from the ground up as ground support unit, it obtained localised air superiority and extended that as ground forces moved forward.


I don't agree, even if all of 11 group were taken out by bombing, there was still 12 group to contend with, then take into account the short range of the BF109 the bombers would have been slaughtered by 12 group fighters when German fighters turned for home.
Click to expand...

All true however had Germany followed it's doctrine the Luftwaffe didn't need to do anymore than control the skies over southern Britain until the army moved forward at which point Luftwaffe forward airfields would have been in Britain and range would have been far less of an issue.
None of which could have happened even with air superiority as the Royal Navy made any landings on a significant scale impossible.

Again I don't agree. Coastal shipping was not vital for supply when the railways were tasked with the same job.
Click to expand...

Umm I didn't say coastal shipping I said coastal airfields and shipping, I probably should have been clearer as I meant shipping in general as in the Battle of the Atlantic plus coastal airfields.

:)
 
MontyB said:
Which is in part my original point, the Luftwaffe was never meant to be a strategic air Force it was designed from the ground up as ground support unit, it obtained localised air superiority and extended that as ground forces moved forward.:)
Click to expand...

What Hitler did was therefore designed to secure that end: a deal, not a full-scale invasion. Fighter Command would be destroyed – flushed with his European successes, ex-fighter ace turned military chief Hermann Göring said it could be done in four days. Wishful thinking

MontyB said:
All true however had Germany followed it's doctrine the Luftwaffe didn't need to do anymore than control the skies over southern Britain until the army moved forward at which point Luftwaffe forward airfields would have been in Britain and range would have been far less of an issue.
None of which could have happened even with air superiority as the Royal Navy made any landings on a significant scale impossible.:)
Click to expand...

I agree with the RN being the major obstacle for Operation Sea Lion, apart from 12 group there was also 10 group to the west to pour into the mix, with the production of aircraft at a steady pace in my opinion the Luftwaffe could never have defeated the RAF.


MontyB said:
Umm I didn't say coastal shipping I said coastal airfields and shipping, I probably should have been clearer as I meant shipping in general as in the Battle of the Atlantic plus coastal airfields.

:)
Click to expand...

I assumed coastal shipping as they were often attacked by JU87 in the English Channel
 
I don't think the Luftwaffe needed to defeat the RAF all it had to do was keep it in Britain.
Realistically, as much as the Royal Navy made it impossible for Germany to invade Britain, Britain was never going to able to retake Europe without a massive boost in it's resources that the USA eventually provided.

So all the Luftwaffe needed to do was support the Kriegsmarine in convoy actions and fight to maintain air superiority over the channel.
 
MontyB said:
I don't think the Luftwaffe needed to defeat the RAF all it had to do was keep it in Britain.
Realistically, as much as the Royal Navy made it impossible for Germany to invade Britain, Britain was never going to able to retake Europe without a massive boost in it's resources that the USA eventually provided.

So all the Luftwaffe needed to do was support the Kriegsmarine in convoy actions and fight to maintain air superiority over the channel.
Click to expand...

Air superiority over the channel by the Luftwaffe was never going to happen, they lost too many experience pilots to achieve it, and of course Barbarossa put paid to any invasion of Britain. The German Navy also raised serious concerns regarding lack of air superiority over the channel.

The use of radar ensured that RAF aircraft were not using fuel and wearing out aircraft on constant standing patrols.

Until the USA entered the war, Britain was fighting to survive with vital assistance from ANZAC, and other aircrew from around the world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top