Why did Britain win the BoB?

"Herbert Pocket" wrote in message ...


Agreed, it is hard to pick out any outstanding Allied failures at the
macroscopic level, though this is probably a consequence of knowing (with
20:20 hindsight) that the Allies were ultimately victorious.


Snip


In no particular order:


A) Earlier recognition of aerial bombing inaccuracies, and development of
improved assessment, equipment & training (with reference to the RAF's poor
performance in early bombing missions and the general misbelief that the job
was being well done).


Herbert Pocket,

Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing. If
Britain, and the Allies, had cut out four engined bombers in order to
have a large increase in top fighters and a boost to strong, fast,and
long-ranged 2 engined bombers: Then Germany would have had a harder
time much sooner. Hopefully, I'm not reading to much into your
sugggestion, I have long put forward similar notion that most of the
strategic bombing was a waste, or it could have been done with much
less and even better. During the Summer of 1940 the Allies could have
had more fighters and more fuel, and have had the bombers on lower
level missions cutting up Germans energy and transport.

All strategic bombing could have, and should have, been done by long
ranged fighter-bombers, and fast 2-engined bombers, and 100% of the
effort shoud have been against German military targets, energy, and
transport. IN 1947 the USAAF stated that 95% of startegic bombing
reasouces were wasted, only 5% of the strategic bombing effort was
worthwhile. But Christ, that 5% was a knock-out! Viturally, all the
crippling damage done by strategic air attack was done by long-ranged
fighter bombers and 2-engined bombers attacking at low altitude, and
almost no serious damage was done by the wasteful other line.

One hundred Mustangs each with a single 1,000lbs bomb, flying in low
in order to lay down 50+ direct hits on railline is very troublesome
to the GErmans, and did I mention the destoyed and badly damaged
locomotives, loads, and other equipment, and the need for Germany then
to disperse AAA? The Allies can put down 500 fighter-bomb sorties
like that a day in the Rhur by 1943 and sleep in to boot.




John Freck

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Britain won the BoB because Churchill bombed Berlin and spoofed Adolf
into diverting the the airfield assaults onto London. EOS.

Grantland

Let me add that it was a lone German bomber that ditched its bombs
over London that caused the British reprisal raid on Berlin and change
of tactics that: relieved Fighter Command, enabled the airfields and
manufacturing plants to be repaired, and assured the Brits that the
German battle for air supremacy would fail now that civilian targets
were being hit instead of military ones. EOS indeed!

Rob

This is in fact an urban legend

The decision to switch targets to London was taken at a Luftwaffe
staff meeting in the Hague on 3rd Sept 1940. The idea came
from the Luftwaffe themselves who believeing their own faulty
intel decided that the RAF was down to its last 300 fighters
decided that the way to destroy them was to attack a target
they had to defend , London.

All the senior Luftwaffe staff officers (except Sperrle IRC)
concurred with the decision wihich delighted Fat Hermann
as he could rush off to der Fuhrer and give him the good news.

Keith

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:Jhqgb.9611$hp5.17@fed1read04...

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
Why did Britain win the BoB?

Let us imagine that we are going to be playing a complex wargame
assigned to us some 3rd or 4th year military science course. There
are 20 classmates. Each will have to write a report from either
GErmany's or Britain's perspective, and the grade will determine your
standing on your team when the game is played.
The Battle of the Atlantic is open to play too. In addition, any
commentary on any matter could boost your grade. Such as commenting
on mass communications then and now, or anything that seems intersting
and anytime relevant to military studies.

The setting is July 1st, 1940. What must the Axis do better? And
what must the Allies do better?

To me it looks like Germany can improve a lot, and Britain only a
little bit. It is easy for the Axis team to create a shopping list of
things to do better, or more, or less, but what can be put on the
Allies list?

John Freck

How successful could the luftwaffe had been if they had simply
concentrated
on attacking ports?



Poorly , most of the ports were out of range of single engine fighters,
and were heavily attacked by night bombers as it was.

Keith

"John Freck" wrote in message
om...
"Herbert Pocket" wrote in message
...


Agreed, it is hard to pick out any outstanding Allied failures at the
macroscopic level, though this is probably a consequence of knowing
(with
20:20 hindsight) that the Allies were ultimately victorious.


Snip


In no particular order:


A) Earlier recognition of aerial bombing inaccuracies, and development
of
improved assessment, equipment & training (with reference to the RAF's
poor
performance in early bombing missions and the general misbelief that
the job
was being well done).


Herbert Pocket,

Your point A) isn't any scraping the barrel by any means. The Allies
wasted immense resources on bombers and strategic bombing. If
Britain, and the Allies, had cut out four engined bombers in order to
have a large increase in top fighters and a boost to strong, fast,and
long-ranged 2 engined bombers: Then Germany would have had a harder
time much sooner. Hopefully, I'm not reading to much into your
sugggestion, I have long put forward similar notion that most of the
strategic bombing was a waste, or it could have been done with much
less and even better. During the Summer of 1940 the Allies could have
had more fighters and more fuel, and have had the bombers on lower
level missions cutting up Germans energy and transport.


Hardly, the first 4 engined bomber, the Short Stirling didnt
enter service until 1941 and the fighters had absolute priority
on production in 1940. Cancelling all 4 engined bomber production
would have made no difference at all to the BOB

All strategic bombing could have, and should have, been done by long
ranged fighter-bombers, and fast 2-engined bombers, and 100% of the
effort shoud have been against German military targets, energy, and
transport. IN 1947 the USAAF stated that 95% of startegic bombing
reasouces were wasted, only 5% of the strategic bombing effort was
worthwhile. But Christ, that 5% was a knock-out! Viturally, all the
crippling damage done by strategic air attack was done by long-ranged
fighter bombers and 2-engined bombers attacking at low altitude, and
almost no serious damage was done by the wasteful other line.


This is flat wrong, most of the oil campaign was carried out by
B-17's, Halifax and Lancaster bombers. The light bombers
of the USAAF were predominantly used to attack transport
infrastructure and tactical targets

One hundred Mustangs each with a single 1,000lbs bomb, flying in low
in order to lay down 50+ direct hits on railline is very troublesome
to the GErmans, and did I mention the destoyed and badly damaged
locomotives, loads, and other equipment, and the need for Germany then
to disperse AAA? The Allies can put down 500 fighter-bomb sorties
like that a day in the Rhur by 1943 and sleep in to boot.


But 500 fighter bomer sorties will deliver only 10% of the bombload
of a 1000 bomber Lancaster raid and in any event neither the USSAF
nor the RAF had 500 P-51's in 1943.

Keith

Leadfoot wrote:

How successful could the luftwaffe had been if they had simply concentrated
on attacking ports?

Successful at what? Certainly not successful winning air superiority prior to
an invasion, which was what they were trying to do. They did bomb ports a lot
during the BoB (Portsmouth, Southampton, Portland, Plymouth, London, Bristol
and Liverpool by night), but except where they were able to damage warships
that would otherwise be available to attack the invasion convoys and/or shoot
down a lot of fighters, it was kind of irrelevant. In any case they didn't
want to damage the port facilities on the south coast too much, because they
figured they'd need them eventually to supply their armies. That presumes the
Brits wouldn't have wrecked them as badly as the Germans wrecked the French
ports in 1944/45, and also assumes that Sealion itself had succeeded enough so
that ports would be an issue, which is damned unlikely given the relative naval
strengths and the ever improving condition of the British Army.

Guy

What would have happened if the Germans had successfully over-run England? I
imagine a bloody period followed by protracted fighting until the US decided
to lend a hand. At which time, the German forces would find themselves both
attacking the B

I'm afraid not. Had Britain (not merely England) been occupied by
Germany, there is no way that the U.S. could have gotten at Europa.
The army was green, the landing craft not yet produced, and the only
aircraft capable of attacking Europa from the U.S. was the B-36, which
couldn't have survived German air defenses and probably wouldn't have
made the slightest difference if it had.

No, I think we would have been content to fight our own war against
Japan.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In message , robert
arndt writes
Britain won the BoB because Churchill bombed Berlin and spoofed Adolf
into diverting the the airfield assaults onto London. EOS.

Grantland

Let me add that it was a lone German bomber that ditched its bombs
over London that caused the British reprisal raid on Berlin and change
of tactics that: relieved Fighter Command, enabled the airfields and
manufacturing plants to be repaired, and assured the Brits that the
German battle for air supremacy would fail now that civilian targets
were being hit instead of military ones. EOS indeed!

The story I found said that it was a lone bomber, aiming for one of the
Kent airfields, which decided to approach from the north-east over
London. They spotted Croydon and misidentified it as Biggin Hill(?) and
unloaded. Croydon was in the London area.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
...
Leadfoot wrote:

How successful could the luftwaffe had been if they had simply
concentrated
on attacking ports?

Successful at what? Certainly not successful winning air superiority
prior to
an invasion, which was what they were trying to do. They did bomb ports a
lot
during the BoB (Portsmouth, Southampton, Portland, Plymouth, London,
Bristol
and Liverpool by night), but except where they were able to damage
warships
that would otherwise be available to attack the invasion convoys and/or
shoot
down a lot of fighters, it was kind of irrelevant. In any case they
didn't
want to damage the port facilities on the south coast too much, because
they
figured they'd need them eventually to supply their armies. That presumes
the
Brits wouldn't have wrecked them as badly as the Germans wrecked the
French
ports in 1944/45, and also assumes that Sealion itself had succeeded
enough so
that ports would be an issue, which is damned unlikely given the relative
naval
strengths and the ever improving condition of the British Army.


I was thinking in terms of starving the British out. Not launching an
invasion that had no chance of success even with air superiority


Guy

If Hitler had understood that Britain would not Sue for peace in time
for him to make an assault on the SU as he was already planning then
there was only one option that actually could have done the job.

How about a German Invasion of Eire ? With enough strength maintained
in the French CHannel ports the RN would not have been able to maintain
a close blockade of the Irish ports or the Brittany coast anymore than
it was able to stop reinforcements to Norway. An Air landing / covert
sea operation into the SW or Eire would have been able to establish a
strong air head at least. If Germany can push the British out of
Ireland then they can enforce a close blockade of the rest of the UK and
starve Britain into submission. Meanwhile Britain can't afford to
direct a lot of resources away from the SE to Eire because of the
presence of significant German forces building there.

Note that the Iris Forces at that time would have been totally
ineffective while anti- british feelings would probably mean that
Britain would have had to carry out a counter invasion against an at
least partially hostile population - not a nice thought.

WOuld an unprovoked German invasion of Eire trigger a response from the
US strong enough and quick enough to make a difference ? Given the US
Isolationism and concerns in the Far East I doubt it. Once the UK has
surrendered Germany can withdraw from Eire in response to US political
pressure and both the US and Germany would have understood that.

End result would probably be a United Ireland which quiet a few of the
US Irish lobby would be strongly in favour of :-

So can Germany get a large enough force into Southern Eire quickly
enough while maintaining the Barge threat to the SW at a high enough
level that the UK can't commit enough forces to prevent the occupation
of Eire ?

Sea lion as the fake in the same way that the Allies convinced Hitler
that the invasion of Europe would occur in the Pas du Calais :-




Leadfoot wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
...

Leadfoot wrote:


How successful could the luftwaffe had been if they had simply

concentrated

on attacking ports?

Successful at what? Certainly not successful winning air superiority

prior to

an invasion, which was what they were trying to do. They did bomb ports a

lot

during the BoB (Portsmouth, Southampton, Portland, Plymouth, London,

Bristol

and Liverpool by night), but except where they were able to damage

warships

that would otherwise be available to attack the invasion convoys and/or

shoot

down a lot of fighters, it was kind of irrelevant. In any case they

didn't

want to damage the port facilities on the south coast too much, because

they

figured they'd need them eventually to supply their armies. That presumes

the

Brits wouldn't have wrecked them as badly as the Germans wrecked the

French

ports in 1944/45, and also assumes that Sealion itself had succeeded

enough so

that ports would be an issue, which is damned unlikely given the relative

naval

strengths and the ever improving condition of the British Army.



I was thinking in terms of starving the British out. Not launching an
invasion that had no chance of success even with air superiority


Guy

John Freck.exe failed a turing test with the following:

Why did Britain win the BoB?

Let us imagine that we are going to be playing a complex wargame
assigned to us some 3rd or 4th year military science course. There
are 20 classmates. Each will have to write a report from either
GErmany's or Britain's perspective, and the grade will determine your
standing on your team when the game is played.
The Battle of the Atlantic is open to play too. In addition, any
commentary on any matter could boost your grade. Such as commenting
on mass communications then and now, or anything that seems intersting
and anytime relevant to military studies.

The setting is July 1st, 1940. What must the Axis do better?

Learn to be flexible, learn some of the priciples of war, ie selection and
maintenance of the aim, get rid of Goering and find someone who wasnt such a
yes-kman to Hitler.

£0.02 suplied.

BMFull