Why was the Luftwaffe defeated in the Battle of Britain?

[sid guttridge]

P.S. That should read 13/12/1911, not 13/13/1911.

Sid.

[dazedandconfused]

The forgotten army you ask? Ah yes, the ones who fought the Japanese at the extremities of their empire in it's dying days.(...)You only do yourself a disservice by talking about the pathetic exploits of the forgotten army. It is best they are forgotten indeed.

Is this meant to imply that it is inappropriate to approve of the exploits, military excellence and heroism shown by Soldiers/an Army if you do not approve of their Political masters? Where does that put the majority of the posters on this forum?? As for talking out of your posterior, it is often engaged in in Britain. Usually only by Politicians and Football Managers, but I'll make an exception for you.
While I'm here,

They treated their prisoners of war as their culture dictated, and if you've got a problem with that, then you're a racist.

No, if I have a problem with that I'm a human being with a working late 20th, early 21st century Western, Eurocentric moral compass. If I went on to say that all Japanese people are short, buck-toothed barbarians who can only copy the West, that would be racist. Happily I don't believe that and never have. This behaviour was considered disgusting by people within Japan as it was considered disgusting outside Japan when it was discovered and publicised. I now have a few very good Japanese friends of about my age who were horrified to find out what had happened in the name of Imperial Japan in many theatres before and during WWII. They also tell me that within Japan this behaviour is not well known and very rarely mentioned, and that is where my problem and the problem of many of the veterans I know lies. Until the Japanese government, however many changes there have been since, the Japanese Imperial Family, however many changes there have been since, and the Japanese people, however many changes there have been since, acknowledge that what happened in Nanking, in Hong Kong, in Singapore and in Thailand and Burma was wrong and should never happen again, there is a problem. After all "those who do not learn from History, are doomed to repeat it."

[Villers-Bocage]

Am I serious? Yes, I was. Actions speak louder than words. To upbraid the Japanese for double speak from the point of view of being a Brit is about as valid as something incredibly invalid. Politicians consistently engage in double speak all the time, and the signing of conventions etc. by politicians is hardly relevant to a given culture. Politicians tend to do as they please. What then was my point regarding not being hypocritical, you ask? Well it wasn't mean't to say that there has never been a single instance in the history of mankind where a person of Japanese ethnicity has engaged in an act of history. Let's keep my statement in context here. I merely mean't to point out that there was nothing you could possibly do to the POW's you held of their forces that would have elicited a complaint from them. This was the position that I argued lacked hypocrisy. The samurai code may not have been followed by every man, woman and child in Japan, but that wasn't my point. It formed the basis of Japan's fighting psyche during world war 2. Surrendered en masse? I believe the politicians did that. There was a strong political movement to take advantage of the fact that the Japanese, if called on to fight, would have fought to the last man. The politicans gave up. Do not reflect this back on to Japanese culture. It is not the same as claiming that there was a democratic referendum in which the majority of Japan decided that there was no point in continuing the war. Finally, if you doubt that the Japanese would have actually fought when their land was invaded, then I refer you to Reb who would love to give you a history lecture on Iwo Jima.

[Villers-Bocage]

The forgotten army. Well it should be fairly evident that this has nothing to do with disapproving of all the exploits of soldiers who had as their political masters some rather evil men; since then not only would this site be in a predicament as you pointed out, but I would too, since believe it or not, I don't approve of the political mastery of the person that was Hitler. I merely mean't to point out that on the scale of things, the forgotten army was forgotten because they certainly weren't doing things on the scale of Iwo Jima etc. Perhaps you should talk to Reb about Iwo Jima. Thank you for allowing the possibility of exceptions being made for myself regarding the use of one's posterior when conversing, but I prefer to use my anterior if that be the correct word. i.e. my mouth, this keyboard, my pen etc. I'm not familiar with reverse end converse. Anyway. Regarding eurocentrism, you are free to call yourself eurocentric, it's not like I'm trying to prove you or anyone else is a racist, frankly I don't much care for any of those designations as long as everyone wages war with reckless abandon. My point was merely that in the cultural context of the time, the POWs you speak of, were meted out treatment that their captors considered appropriate to those who had dishonoured themselves by surrender. Speaking to Japanese citizens of today outside the cultural context that was the Samurai fighting psyche will not help you understand what was going on during world war 2, and your attempt at equating the suffering of POWs with that of comfort women and victims of genocide is utterly contemptible in as much as it trivializes what happened to the native peoples of the Far East. So basically what you are saying is that your grandparents want the Japanese government to change their school history textbooks. I believe the Chinese are making a similar request. To that I say 'mind your own business'; let them teach what they want to their own kind, it is ultimately to their own disadvantage to be spreading falsehoods and untruths. But as far as your grandparents and the veterans are concerned, they have no business attempting to engage in finger pointing with the Japanese people or government, and I wholeheartedly support the decision of any Japanese person to thumb his nose at the hypocrisy of those who criticize Japanese POW treatment and once again affirm that the veterans are really just a bunch of sore losers.

[sid guttridge]

Hi V-B,

Are you serious about being serious?

Hypocrisy is not dependent on the eye of the beholder, it is dependent on the actions of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter whether the observer is British or not, it is the actions of the Japanese that count.

There is no doubt that the Japanese voluntarily signed up to certain internationally accepted standards of behaviour under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and then failed to live up to them. This is without doubt hypocritical, either in firstly signing up to something in which they did not believe, or secondly in then failing to carry out the conventions as voluntarily agreed.

Of course there were things that could have been done to Japanese prisoners that would have elicited complaints from them. Their captors were not only subject to the same Hague Conventions as the Japanese, but the 1929 Geneva Convention as well. The fact that they may not initially have been aware that their captors were subject to these conventions is hardly their captors' faults. They should have been briefed by their own government, which knew all this. It strikes me that their own obligations and those of their opponents were deliberately kept from the Japanese population, be it in arms or civilian.

The British veterans are not "sore losers", they are sore winners, and badly abused ones at that. I do not think they have any legal claim on the Japanese today because the matter was settled on a government-to-government basis in the 1950s. However, to my mind they might have a case against the British Government for failing to represent their interests adequately at that time.

Who is doubting that the Japanese would have fought if invaded? Certainly not me. That is why I support the decision to drop the A-bombs.

It was not simply the Japanese politicians who gave up. Remember, it was the military that had dominated the Japanese government since the early 1930s, not civilian politicians. The Japanese armed forces gave up without a further squeak. And quite right they were to do so. There was no military, let alone popular, will to face annihilation.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Schachbrett]

Hypocrisy is not dependent on the eye of the beholder, it is dependent on the actions of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter whether the observer is British or not, it is the actions of the Japanese that count.

There is no doubt that the Japanese voluntarily signed up to certain internationally accepted standards of behaviour under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and then failed to live up to them. This is without doubt hypocritical, either in firstly signing up to something in which they did not believe, or secondly in then failing to carry out the conventions as voluntarily agreed.

i accept your views on the hypocrisy sid and agree with you completely!
now imagine this: queen elizabeth or prince charlie (and wife of course) come to visit croatia one of theese days. would you as a brit support the croatian veterans of WWII on turning their back on them becouse of bleiburg massacre? honestly would you sid? or would they be bloody nacis or even worse names?
remeber cossacks, vlasovs army and all those who were perforce returned to stalin and other communist governments?
all theese people are victims of yalta agreement. so on one hand we have the hague and geneva conventions and the atlantic chart and on the other hand we have the yalta agreement? do i have to say wich of theese documents were honoured?
i agree with you about the hypocrisy of the japanese government but do you agree with me about hypocrisy of british and us government? or is hypocrisy dependant on the eye of the beholder?

with regards

[awaygood]

England didn't win the Battle of Britain. Britain did.

[Andy H]

England didn't win the Battle of Britain. Britain did.

Well you should really say Britain, the Commonwealth and numerous other countries in that order.

I was going to add something else to this thread but it seems to have gone Japanese. Very strange for a BoB thread.

[awaygood]

Your quite right, of course...

[awaygood]

Or, better still, "You're" quite right, of course!

[Paul Lakowski]

Hi V-B,

I would agree that Hitler was a gambler, but he was a very shrewd gambler, and certainly until 1940 a much shrewder gambler than his army general staff. It was Hitler who got his army to the shores of the Channel against his general staff's more cautious instincts. I agree that his good judgement and gambling parted company in 1940-41, but before then it was much more than luck that earned him his successes.

Eh of late I've been doing some reading of Overy/Deist etc and I respectfully disagree. It was not Hitler that proposed the bold operational maneuver that out did the allies in France 1940, it was Manstein. It was not Hitler that got the Germans to the channel , it was Guderian who found a way around Hitler’s 'halt order' and continued the drive to the channel. It was not the German army that halted and let the allies escape at Dunkirk, but Hitler who believed that the UK would finally come to its senses and withdraw from the war. It was not the German generals who halted the drive on Moscow and redirected to the flanks , but Hitler. It was Hitler who at the end of 1941 , sacked all the best top German generals and took over suffocating control of the Wehrmacht operational war and thus crippling the principle of 'Auftregstaktik' [mission orders] .

Goering was a very powerful driving force in Hitler's successes prior to 1940 and it was largely through Nazi political will, as personified by him, that Germany had a Luftwaffe capable of launching a Battle of Britain, even if it wasn't quite up to winning it.

Eh again respectfully ...If Goering had not been in charge of the Luftwaffe, it would have remained in the competent hands of Knauss Milch & Wever’s , and not passed of to the dive bombing junkie Udet & Kesserling , who crippled the German bomber force in the late 1930s.

The Germans then would have had a multi engined strategic bomber force by 1937 and by 1940 it would have featured about 700-800 x Ju-89 that could fly above the RAF fighters and drop in on any target they choose from the channel to the north of Scotland [Ju-89 ;bomb load of 2500kg @ 38,000ft & 250 mph Vs 36700 ft ceiling for the ‘1940’ Hurricane and Spitfire fighters doing 350 mph].

Such bombers would have forced the RAF to disperse its larger fighter force to cover each sector , so only a fraction of their fighter force could meet these massed German bomber sorties as the descend to bombing altitude and dash out to sea. Their delivery capacity, while consuming all the aviation gasoline and large bombs produced in 1940 would have unloaded a bombing intensity comparable to what the allies unleashed in 1944 on Fortress Europa.

Germany's armed forces were not overwhelmingly superior to those of Britain. Its army certainly was, but its air force could not impose itself on the RAF over the latter's own air space and its navy was very inferior. Germany had other challenges to face on the continent before confronting Britain, and its armed force were geared to these preliminary land operations. To have started devoting excessive resources to challenge the British in their chosen elements might have compromised German army expansion, which was always the key priority.

Cheers,

Sid.

While the RN & RAF were indeed formidable foes, as their airfields and ports were destroyed, they would have less reach and ability to interfere in any German invasion of the British isles. Conversely as the Germans are able to seize more ports and airfields , their reach and striking power would grow. Finally the German pre war industry, while bigger than the UK , was second only to the USA but very poorly managed and run.

Only ¼ of the auto industry was in use at the start of the war, while the tank and plane industries were run at ½ capacity. When push came to shove in mid war and they moved to ‘total war economy’ , the Germans quadrupled their out put in critical sectors [planes/tanks], with only a marginal increase in the respective industrial capacity. Most other countries moved to ‘total war economy’ in the first year of fighting, because they had begun the process years before. The soviets did this starting in 1934-36 while the UK started before that and the USA economy was geared towards mass production from the 1920s.

This increase was mostly achieved by eliminating unnecessary duplication and waste and expanding production capacity with night shifts. It could have been done just as easily in 1939/40 , as in 1942/43, if the political will had been there. This is why the UK produced twice as many weapons than the Nazis did in 1940 for the same capital investment. The UK war industry was prepared for war, while the nazis were not and you can thank the likes of Hitler and Goering for that. An enlarged investment in the KM and Luftwaffe, prewar would have been exactly the ‘kick in the ass’ crisis the German industries /four year plan needed, to expand employment , eliminate the waste and stream line their economies for war and thus would not have interfere with the expansion of the Heer.

[Hop]

The Germans then would have had a multi engined strategic bomber force by 1937 and by 1940 it would have featured about 700-800 x Ju-89 that could fly above the RAF fighters and drop in on any target they choose from the channel to the north of Scotland [Ju-89 ;bomb load of 2500kg @ 38,000ft & 250 mph Vs 36700 ft ceiling for the ‘1940’ Hurricane and Spitfire fighters doing 350 mph].

Isn't it strange that every unproduced German weapon, and every untried German strategy, was a war winner, but every piece of equipment they did build, and every strategy they did try, didn't win the war for them?

In every case they made the wrong choice about what to build, the rejected prototype would always have been much better than the accepted one, the rejected plan much more successfull than the one that was carried out.

Or it could be that unproduced equipment and untried plans are judged by a different standard. They are judged by what they were designed to do, and the flaws and problems that happened to the accepted plans and produced equipment are never considered.

I'm sure if Hitler had [wisely] decided against the V-2 rocket programme, we'd be regaled now with tales of how the 3,000 V-2s a month hitting targets in London and on the invasion beaches, sinking ships with their 100m accuracy, would have won the war for Germany.

[Paul Lakowski]

The Germans then would have had a multi engined strategic bomber force by 1937 and by 1940 it would have featured about 700-800 x Ju-89 that could fly above the RAF fighters and drop in on any target they choose from the channel to the north of Scotland [Ju-89 ;bomb load of 2500kg @ 38,000ft & 250 mph Vs 36700 ft ceiling for the ‘1940’ Hurricane and Spitfire fighters doing 350 mph].

Isn't it strange that every unproduced German weapon, and every untried German strategy, was a war winner, but every piece of equipment they did build, and every strategy they did try, didn't win the war for them?

In every case they made the wrong choice about what to build, the rejected prototype would always have been much better than the accepted one, the rejected plan much more successfull than the one that was carried out.

Or it could be that unproduced equipment and untried plans are judged by a different standard. They are judged by what they were designed to do, and the flaws and problems that happened to the accepted plans and produced equipment are never considered.

Ah but the mistake your making is that there can only be one conclustion to reach every time....no matter how you change the inputs. If infact the RAF were able to function in the BoB because they could keep putting squadrons together in the more remote regions of northern england. This is held up as proof that Luftwaffe could never win fighting that way. Therefore how would they have faired fighting another way?

The change is not a weapon but a role. The KM/Luftwaffe meetings in 1937/38 came to the conclustion that without a multi engined strategic bomber all they could hope to do was to hit the channnel ports/airbases and industries in southern England. It there fore beggs the question what would have happened , had the Luftwaffe , without Hitler/Goering/Udets interference, had followed the original development plan set out for it [Knauss Bomber force] with 800-1000 multi engined strategic bombers during the BoB?

I'm sure if Hitler had [wisely] decided against the V-2 rocket programme, we'd be regaled now with tales of how the 3,000 V-2s a month hitting targets in London and on the invasion beaches, sinking ships with their 100m accuracy, would have won the war for Germany.

No instead we'd be marvaling on the impact of tens of thousands of ASM and SAMs used by the Wehrmacht to delay/defeat the western allies until Germany got nuked?

[Hop]

The change is not a weapon but a role. The KM/Luftwaffe meetings in 1937/38 came to the conclustion that without a multi engined strategic bomber all they could hope to do was to hit the channnel ports/airbases and industries in southern England. It there fore beggs the question what would have happened , had the Luftwaffe , without Hitler/Goering/Udets interference, had followed the original development plan set out for it [Knauss Bomber force] with 800-1000 multi engined strategic bombers during the BoB?

800 strategic bombers? Not a problem, daylight strategic bombing did not work without escorts, that was proved time and again during the war.

If infact the RAF were able to function in the BoB because they could keep putting squadrons together in the more remote regions of northern england. This is held up as proof that Luftwaffe could never win fighting that way. Therefore how would they have faired fighting another way?

Even if you escort the new strategic bombers with long ranges fighters, say 109s equipped with drop tanks, you aren't really solving any problems. Certainly you can take the battle to the quiet areas, and bring RAF squadrons there into the battle, but is that really an advantage for the Luftwaffe? Certainly you stop the RAF resting squadrons, but the converse is you bring more RAF squadrons into the battle.

Instead of the Luftwaffe concentrating the battle in the SE, where they had a large numerical superiority, the battle is spread all over the UK, the Luftwaffe has no numerical superiority, and the RAF in the SE has a quieter time of it as lots of the raids they actually faced go to the North or West of Britain.

It doesn't really sound like an advantage.

So, the change in role isn't a problem, it requires a wonder weapon, the bomber that flies out of reach, to really change things (and the fact that 5 years later no-one had built a bomber that carries a usefull load and flies out of reach suggests the Germans weren't close to it in 1940 either)

No instead we'd be marvaling on the impact of tens of thousands of ASM and SAMs used by the Wehrmacht to delay/defeat the western allies until Germany got nuked

That's the point, isn't it? The unproduced weapon is always produced on time, on budget, in numbers, to specification, works flawlessly, is impossible to counter (or usually the enemy doesn't even try to counter).

In reality weapons are usually late, don't work as well as hoped, and difficult to produce, and the enemy finds a way of mitigating the effects.

What all the wonder weapon discussions rely on is someone getting a several year advantage in technology, and that technology working perfectly.

It didn't happen like that, of course, except perhaps in the case of the nuclear bomb.

The closest the Germans came to a decisive lead was in rocket technology, but that's mainly because nobody else could see the sense in it.

If you look at anti aircraft missiles, it was probably 5 or 6 years minimum after the end of the war before they'd have been capable of defeating large scale daylight bombing.

[Paul Lakowski]

Your missing the point about the weapons effectiveness. It doesn't matter if they arenot all they are cracked up to be, as long as they are produced in enough numbers and they allow a strategy to be implimented they would have made a difference. Sherman tank was not a good tank stacked up against the German umber tanks, but its strengths were ease of production and reliablilty. As long as it remained so, allied doctrine could make its larger numbers work or modify it to fit with the doctrine. Like wize once a strategic bomber capability is attained it becomes a 'system approach' thats developed and improved upon over time. Even a bad He-177 bomber was better than no HE-177 bomber and a start.


Had the hi altitude strategic bomber been used, the RAF fighter squadrons would not have been able to concentrate to meet them.They would have to have spread out to cover all bases. Only those fighters in the region would be able to intercept before the bombers before the climbed out of reach again. So they would always be out numbered. BTW strategic bombing of the intensity of the allied attacks of 1944 did what it was supposed to do...it neutralised the german airforce and the german mechanised forces, thus giving the allied armies a descisive operational advantage.

But such an attack would never have reached full results without a corresponding ground attack so it would have to be part of a combined arms strategy. As long as Stategic bombers could hit any port or airfield, the keys to UK defense could be defeated or neutralised long enough for ground troops to get a foot hold on ports and then the isles. Once bases are secured on the ground Luftwaffe can operate from them.

The SAM did work as advertised which is why the Soviets scooped it up after the war and ordered it into production ...only to cancel that when they realised it was designed to combat prop driven planes while the threat they faced was from jets . That demanded an much faster missile. You can argue 5 more years of development if you'd like ...but each year in war = 7-10 years in peacetime.So that would only translate into a 6 month delay.

Since the SAM was designed as a family of missiles from the same concept along with the Fritz X and Hs-293 , there is every reason to suspect the SAM and ATGM and Wire guided AAM would have worked against the contemporary threats they faced . Whats more the ASM give us a reasonable timetable for there expected production...IE 1943.