Why did Britain win the BoB?

(John Freck) wrote:

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

Adopt a strategy capable of winning and then stick with it.
Whether attacking Radar stations, Sector Stations, Aircraft plants or
POL, the Luftwaffe never continued any single strategy long enough for
it to be crippling to the UKs overall effort.

Quit blaming the weather. Adopt the flexible strategy of
operations vs. weather used later in the battle.

Frei Jagd. Destroy the fighters and eventually the bombers
won't have fighters to worry about.

'Relay' style fighter escort of bombers.

Move Luftflotte 5 to France.

Develop intelligence - poor intel let to poorer targeting.


what must the Allies do better?

Adopt the US's .50cal machine gun.

Disperse engine manufacture, it's concentrated in only a few
plants. In wargaming, this is one facet that continually worked for me
when acting as the Axis - aero engine manufacture grounded the RAF
when I significantly damaged the factories.

Reduce labor time (especially the exquisite hand fittting) of
aero engine components.

Allow more foreign nationals to fly as pilots, if possible.
A covert agreement with the USAF/USN/USMC like Chennault made ?

I like the other poster's suggestion of rescue floats in the
Channel, and better camoflage of aircraft - let me expand the camo to
include decoys and ack-ack traps over the decoys.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: (John Freck)
m

Why did Britain win the BoB?

Apart from the strategy and technical discussions, the BoB was won by the
superhuman resolve and exhaustive efforts of the RAF. Heroes to a man.

Churchill was exacly correct with his "Never has so much been owed by so many
to so few" statement.
Dave

Dav1936531 wrote:

snip

Churchill was exacly correct with his "Never has so much been owed by so many
to so few" statement.

To which the standard RAF fighter pilot joke was "He must be referring to our bar
bills." ;-)

Guy

"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?

"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

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

"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

"Steven Vincent" wrote in message
...

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.


Trouble is that the UK maintained considerable forces in Ulster
and the Germans would have to move a considerable force
in to Ireland to hold the country.

By July 1940 British forces tasked with 'assisting' the Irish Army
in the event of invasion included

53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division
601st Infantry Division
148 Infantry Brigade
plus several locally raised regiments such as the
Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, Royal Irish Rangers,
The Royal Irish Fusiliers, The Royal Ulster Rifles etc

The RAF maintained half a dozen fighter squadrons
in the province and a similar number of coastal command
units

Coastal command were flying recon patrols over the Bay of
Biscay and western approaches it seems probable
that an invasion force large enough to be useful would be
intercepted.


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 ?


No. Germany was scraping the bottom of the barrel to
get enough transports to cross the English Channel, moving a
substantial force across the Bay of Biscay was just
not feasible.

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 :-


Which wont work unless the threat is credible. The real worry came
from the possibility that the Irish might choose to become
allied with Germany and invite them in. This was one of the
scenarios that gave British planners sleepless nights

Keith

Keith

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

Geez, how many newsgroups did you try and troll Johnny?

tim gueguen 101867