In article , John
Mullen wrote:

The RN may have been arguably the strongest although
the USN was surely equal or better. The RAF was able
to hold its own on the defensive (just) but it was in no
shape to launch any real attacks on the nemey and the
army was pitifully small in comparison to that of Germany
and was for the most part less well equipped and led.

1) RN was still (slightly) stronger than the USN (see 3 below). RAF was, as
you say, able (just) to do its job in defending the UK. The army was not
nearly as pitifully small as in WW1 and could count on massive reinforcement
in logistics from the colonies, which the aforementioned RN and RAF would
guarantee would (mostly) get through.


No the RAF was more than capable of holding out against the Luftwaffe.
The germans had the wrong aircraft the wrong tactics and well, just
about everything. -Even had they worked out what the strange looking
towers round the south coast were for and demolished them, enabling
them to knock out the RAF's frontline airfields, all the RAF would have
had to do was to pull their fighters back to the North of London (out
of the limited range of the german bombers) and continue sniping away.
-The RAF ended the Battle of Britain materially stronger than when it
started. -Of course they enjoyed the advantage of being able to recover
their downed pilots, and a large proportion of even the most badly
damaged aircraft, but they also enjoyed the most sophisticated command
and control system in existance at the time, together with professional
leadership, and an operational ethos which did not glorify the few aces
at the expense of the majority of canon fodder. I could go on but I
would recommend instead that you read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by
Stephen Bungay.

Favourite quote from a German pilot, assured that the RAF was on it's
last legs sometime in September 1940

"Oh look, here come the last 50 Spitfires ..... again"