[Video] Battle of Britain - Setting and the British Defense Organization

[gladius2metal]

Short video giving an overview about the balance of forces in August 1940. The Luftwaffe and RAF Organization, with a special focus on the defense organization of the British.

disclaimer: I made this.

 

[stevieji]

Interesting to hear a German perspective on one of our national myths and legends. Obviously the central 'myth' you're addressing is the idea of 'the few' - and you've shown that the RAF and Luftwaffe were perhaps surprisingly evenly matched. Certainly the RAF was not completely outnumbered, as might be assumed from this phrase 'the few', but it may not have been quite as even as you suggest.

First thing to say is that its 'so few' when compared to the population of Britain - not to the Luftwaffe - that's the context of the quote.

Second, you seem to have researched the subject thoroughly, but a few things occurred to me which you might want to consider ...

1. You mention 4 fighter groups: 10, 11, 12 & 13. Only two of these were in the south (10 & 11), the others were in Nottinghamshire (12) and Newcastle (13). Perhaps you have already considered this - and without going through squadron records I don't have data, but I know that 12 group often arrived too late to get involved in any action - particularly in the early attacks on the fighter bases south of London. If I recall correctly, they were deployed on patrol, rather than scrambled to action - and it was largely a matter of chance whether they would be in the right place at the right time. I suspect that 13 group was too far away to be called into action at all.

2. You talk about the relative strength of the fighter forces - with the Luftwaffe having 800 Me109s and the RAF a total of 700 fighters. This is where it gets interesting for me - you break this down into 55% Hurricanes and 30% Spitfires - leaving 15% unaccounted for. I think it's worth mentioning that those 105 aircraft were all obsolescent types - specifically:

• Bristol Blenheim and Beaufighter twin engined aircraft - the Blenheim was a light bomber, not a fighter - and neither aircraft was even comparable to the Me110. At some point in the battle these were withdrawn from service, because they were being shot down so easily.
• Gloster Gladiator biplanes. Maybe of some use as a training aircraft.
• Boulton Paul Defiant - a monoplane, at least, but old and terribly slow. The fact that it had a rear gunner should tell you something about its capabilities.

I would almost say that these aircraft should all be excluded from your totals.

3. I found the figures you gave for the number of fighter pilots on each side surprising - 1380 RAF against 870 Luftwaffe. I have no data to contradict you, but anecdotally the RAF was very short of pilots - more so than aircraft - and particularly short of experienced pilots. Your figures seem to suggest there were 680 RAF fighter pilots without aircraft.

I do hope you won't find this too critical - and I look forward to the next instalment (if invited).

 

[gladius2metal]

Interesting to hear a German perspective on one of our national myths and legends.

this is hilarious in a two ways, first I used almost only Overy (An English Professor; but his book was an intended "mythbuster") as source and I used one German source... and second, while I was reading, I thought: interesting Overy is "bashing" the Brits and the German author is "bashing" the Germans.

the few in the speech was referring to the whole RAF, in the famous speech he talks way more about the Bomber command than the Fighter command. (something have on a top X list for an upcoming BoB video)

1. You mention 4 fighter groups: 10, 11, 12 & 13..

yes, but only in text for the basic structure/organization. As far as I know Dowding also let squadrons circle from one group to another.

I would almost say that these aircraft should all be excluded from your totals.

good point.

3. I found the figures you gave for the number of fighter pilots on each side surprising - 1380 RAF against 870 Luftwaffe..

this was already in August, the Luftwaffe had already lost quite a lot pilots. The situation in May and June was quite different, my problem was: Overy has data for about 8 points in time for the RAF/Fighter Command and 4 for the Luftwaffe, futrhermore he has the number of aircrafts listed, but also for different months... the June date would have been better but there was at least one value missing, thus I decided I take August. Especially, since I will make at least one more video were I will take into account all the number if possible. For this reason, I often have in the description "notes on accuracy".
The British always overestimated the Luftwaffe, whereas the Germans underestimated the RAF (except for an initial assessment). Hence, the British optimized.
some numbers Overy lists for 30th June 1940: 1200 Operational strength for the Fighter Command and for 1st June 1940 906 for the Luftwaffe. The last number for both is 1796 on 2nd of November for the RAF and 673 on 1st of November for the Luftwaffe.

I do hope you won't find this too critical

nope, not at all. Although I don't really get what you meant with the point 1.

 

[stevieji]

Although I don't really get what you meant with the point 1.

Do you mean point 1. about the fighter groups?

 

[gladius2metal]

Do you mean point 1. about the fighter groups?

yeah

 

[stevieji]

yeah

What I'm suggesting is that they were not all front line units. If I'm right, 13 Group was up in Newcastle defending the northern part of the English North Sea coast - and so wasn't really involved in 'The Battle of Britain'. 12 Group in Notts was closer, but still struggling to get involved, as its real responsibility was the defence of the southern part of the North Sea coast. Incidentally, there was also a fighter group based in Scotland (14 Group) and another in Lancashire (9 Group) - although I'm not sure the latter was entirely operational in 1940. Either way, they weren't involved - and I'm not sure 13 Group was either.

I used almost only Overy (An English Professor; but his book was an intended "mythbuster") as source

This is the current trend - and I think it's a good thing generally, but they should take care not to overdo it.

the few in the speech was referring to the whole RAF, in the famous speech he talks way more about the Bomber command than the Fighter command.

Hmmm ... yes, you're right - but the date of the speech is important - in August 1940 Churchill was firstly thanking Fighter Command, but also talking about the next phase of the war - and Bomber Command was really the only offensive weapon he had at his disposal. When he says "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." (past tense) he's talking about Fighter Command and The Battle of Britain. He continues ... "All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day, but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany (present tense).
The famous poster, though ...

... features Bomber Command aircrew - which is something most people don't realise.

The British always overestimated the Luftwaffe, whereas the Germans underestimated the RAF

This is entirely from memory, but if I recall correctly, part of the problem with the British figures was that they had incorrectly assumed that squadron sizes were the same on both sides. Such a fundamental intelligence failure seems incredible - but this is another source of the 'myth'.
I'm sure you will also go on to talk about the way the British propaganda machine exaggerated the number of aircraft the RAF were shooting down. It's quite incredible that a lot of this stuff only emerged quite recently - I think because of the 50 year embargo on government papers.

On the point about pilot numbers - the RAFs situation had certainly improved dramatically by the end of the battle. I have no reason to dispute your figures, but I'm sure things were quite different in June 1940.

 

[gladius2metal]

thx for the extensive reply!

This is entirely from memory, but if I recall correctly, part of the problem with the British figures was that they had incorrectly assumed that squadron sizes were the same on both sides. Such a fundamental intelligence failure seems incredible - but this is another source of the 'myth'.
I'm sure you will also go on to talk about the way the British propaganda machine exaggerated the number of aircraft the RAF were shooting down. It's quite incredible that a lot of this stuff only emerged quite recently - I think because of the 50 year embargo on government papers.

On the point about pilot numbers - the RAFs situation had certainly improved dramatically by the end of the battle. I have no reason to dispute your figures, but I'm sure things were quite different in June 1940.

didn't come across the squadron stuff, can't confirm or deny. But the main reason for the complete off numbers was actually that both sides used their own production figures for estimating the others... well, German production was low and British production was high.
Basically all sides completely overestimated how many planes were shot down, I read a few numbers ages and ago and since then I read them all over again on the forums, everyone clearly states that the numbers reported even without propaganda are FAR off.

 

[stevieji]

A few notes on the 4 groups - from their respective Wiki pages ...

10 Group
The group was re-formed on 1 June 1940 within Fighter Command to enable neighbouring No. 11 Group to function more efficiently. Its area of operation was the south-western region of England.
10 Group supported 11 Group in the Battle of Britain by rotating squadrons, providing additional fighter support when needed, and supplying additional pilots.
As well as providing support for 11 Group, 10 Group also had some squadrons of aircraft that could not be risked in the Battle of Britain (Gloster Gladiator, Boulton Paul Defiant).

11 Group
11 Group's most famous period was during the Battle of Britain when, due to its position, 11 Group bore the brunt of the German aerial assault. Pilots posted to squadrons in 11 Group knew that they would be sent into certain action while pilots and squadrons transferring out of 11 Group knew that they were going to comparatively safer duty.

12 Group
It was the group responsible for aerial defence of the Midlands, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and North Wales.
As well as regional defence, 12 Group were also supposed to fly cover for 11 Group airfields during the Battle of Britain, but several times, these fields were left undefended. When Park complained about it, Leigh-Mallory responded that in order to test his Big Wing theory (espoused by Squadron Leader Douglas Bader), more time was needed to get the necessary squadrons airborne.

13 Group
As well as guarding the north during the Battle of Britain, 13 Group also provided reserve squadrons and pilots to the more beleaguered 11 Group, and provided quieter bases for squadrons to recuperate from operations.

From this it's obvious that 11 Group was the main front-line formation, with the other 3 groups providing various degrees of support. You'll find the complete order of battle here ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fighter_Command_Order_of_Battle_1940#Fighter_Command
It shows that 11 Group contained many more squadrons than the other groups.

Hope this is useful rather than annoying.

 

[Dina1954]

Short video giving an overview about the balance of forces in August 1940. The Luftwaffe and RAF Organization, with a special focus on the defense organization of the British.

disclaimer: I made this.

During the battle of Brittain I have read that Me-110 was clearly inferior to Spitfire and Hurricane.That bad reputation is probably not 100% right.The statistic of Brittish losses in the Battle of Brittain 1940. (Source Swedish Pencil & Sword)

The fighter losses in the Battle of Brittain 1940 :

Type Available Combat losses Ratio

Spitfire ca. 560 394 1,2:1
Hurricane ca. 715 603 1,4:1
Me-109 ca. 760 534 1,4:1
Me-110 ca. 290 196 1,5:1

As we can see Me-110 was not a bad fighter at least not so bad as its reputation.

 

[stevieji]

During the battle of Brittain I have read that Me-110 was clearly inferior to Spitfire and Hurricane.That bad reputation is probably not 100% right.The statistic of Brittish losses in the Battle of Brittain 1940. (Source Swedish Pencil & Sword)

The fighter losses in the Battle of Brittain 1940 :

Type Available Combat losses Ratio

Spitfire ca. 560 394 1,2:1
Hurricane ca. 715 603 1,4:1
Me-109 ca. 760 534 1,4:1
Me-110 ca. 290 196 1,5:1

As we can see Me-110 was not a bad fighter at least not so bad as its reputation.

Don't you mean the Me 109? It was objectively better than both the Hurricane and Spitfire. Better performance in almost all respects, due to its fuel-injected engine - and more destructive power from its nose-mounted cannon.
The Me 110 was a twin-engined fighter-bomber, which was really no use as a fighter, except perhaps in the night-fighter variant.

 

[Dina1954]

Don't you mean the Me 109? It was objectively better than both the Hurricane and Spitfire. Better performance in almost all respects, due to its fuel-injected engine - and more destructive power from its nose-mounted cannon.
The Me 110 was a twin-engined fighter-bomber, which was really no use as a fighter, except perhaps in the night-fighter variant.

No I ment Me 110 but the figures were hard to see so I try again

Type available losses ratio

Hurricane 560 394 1,2:1

Spitfire 715 603 1,4:1

Me-109 760 534 1,4:1

Me-109 290 196 1,5:1

The Zerstörer units claimed 27,8% of the shoot downs enemy fighters among the 85 pilots who had 5 or more victories they had 19 pilots who flew Me-110.

 

[stevieji]

No I ment Me 110 but the figures were hard to see so I try again

Type available losses ratio

Hurricane 560 394 1,2:1

Spitfire 715 603 1,4:1

Me-109 760 534 1,4:1

Me-109 290 196 1,5:1

The Zerstörer units claimed 27,8% of the shoot downs enemy fighters among the 85 pilots who had 5 or more victories they had 19 pilots who flew Me-110.

Ok - seems I was wrong about the designation - I found a reference to the Me 110 in wiki as a 'heavy fighter', rather than fighter bomber. I was trying to find out what a Zerstörer was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fighter
The article suggests that the Me 110 performed well against the Hurricane, but was no match for the Spitfire - and took such heavy losses that it was withdrawn and used as a night-fighter. At this point, though, summer 1940, it was still used as an escort fighter - and doesn't seem to have done too badly - as you say.

I won't dispute your figures - they're not far off what I found, but I wonder how valuable they are regarding the Me 110. This quote caught my eye ...

"At the start of the battle, the twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf 110C long range Zerstörer ("Destroyer") was also expected to engage in air-to-air combat while escorting the Luftwaffe bomber fleet. Although the 110 was faster than the Hurricane and almost as fast as the Spitfire, its lack of manoeuvrability and acceleration meant that it was a failure as a long-range escort fighter. On 13 and 15 August, 13 and 30 aircraft were lost, the equivalent of an entire Gruppe, and the type's worst losses during the campaign. This trend continued with a further eight and fifteen lost on 16 and 17 August. Göring ordered the Bf 110 units to operate "where the range of the single-engined machines were not sufficient".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Attrition_statistics

So, if they were withdrawn, or at least not risked so much, by mid-August, it wouldn't be surprising that they had a better survival rate - right? Number of 'kills' might be a more valuable statistic than survival in assessing the relative merits of each plane.

Incidentally you've written Me 109 twice, now - I know the second one is the Me 110.

 

[gladius2metal]

Don't you mean the Me 109? It was objectively better than both the Hurricane and Spitfire. Better performance in almost all respects, due to its fuel-injected engine - and more destructive power from its nose-mounted cannon.

you are mixing something up here, the Bf109 (Me109) in Battle of Britain was mainly the E-Series with the E-3 and E-4 those had cannons but in the wings. The nose-mounted (or be more specific engine-mounted) one was only introducted with the F-Series. Also the Bf109 has about equal to the Spit, better climb rate I think but definitely less maneuverable, also way less forgiving.

 

[gladius2metal]

Interesting point about the Bf110. Overy didn't spend too much thought on it, but I guess there are several factors:
1) I guess that the RAF probably thought that the Bf110 is a bomber, thus given higher priority to be shot down.
2) The Luftwaffe had no experience with escorting bombers and the Bf110 was unsuited yet intended for this purpose.
3) The "low losses" probably are a result them being taken out of combat as stevieji put it.

The last point is an assumption based on war games:
4) The Bf110 can be deadly if used correctly, but the escorting job prevented the "proper" use.

 

[stevieji]

you are mixing something up here, the Bf109 (Me109) in Battle of Britain was mainly the E-Series with the E-3 and E-4 those had cannons but in the wings.

You're quite right of course - but even so, the firepower from the wing-mounted cannon was devastating compared to the guns on the RAF fighters. There are arguments both ways - the 109's cannons had only enough ammunition for 7 seconds continuous fire, but the Spitfire's machine guns had only 16 seconds - compared to the 109's 25 seconds of machine gun fire. This must have been quite an advantage at times, despite the obvious disadvantage of fewer guns.

Also the Bf109 has about equal to the Spit, better climb rate I think but definitely less maneuverable, also way less forgiving.

These arguments tend to cancel each other out - they were certainly quite evenly matched overall. You shouldn't underestimate the importance of the 109s fuel injection system though. RAF pilots would say that frequently - particularly in a dive - the engine would simply cut out, with a complete loss of power until the aircraft was levelled up again. I imagine this must have been quite disconcerting if being pursued by an Me 109.

I guess that the RAF probably thought that the Bf110 is a bomber, thus given higher priority to be shot down.

I read somewhere that the RAF thought the 110s were being escorted by 109s - so yes.

 

[Dina1954]

[QUOTE="stevieji, post: 20705202, member: 839858"

Incidentally you've written Me 109 twice, now - I know the second one is the Me 110.[/QUOTE]Type available losses ratio


Another thing was wrong about the Hurricanes and Spitfires I try again


Type---- available--- losses--- ratio

Spitfire----- 560 -------394------ 1,2:1

Hurricane- 715 -------603------ 1,4:1

Me-109---- 760------- 534------ 1,4:1

Me-110---- 290------- 196------ 1,5:1

I am not saying Me-110 was a good fighter only wanted to point out that it was a bit better than its bad reputiation.The Zerstörergeschwader claimed about 280 planes of the ca.1000 who was shoot down that is more than theyself lost before they was withdrown from action.

 

[gladius2metal]

3. I found the figures you gave for the number of fighter pilots on each side surprising - 1380 RAF against 870 Luftwaffe. I have no data to contradict you, but anecdotally the RAF was very short of pilots - more so than aircraft - and particularly short of experienced pilots. Your figures seem to suggest there were 680 RAF fighter pilots without aircraft.

just found that entry, might be interesting to you:

"Added aces during such an important period in the war is sure to have been helpful but the RAF didn't particularly need pilots during the Battle of Britain, contrary to popular belief. The Luftwaffe was running out of crews and planes far faster than the RAF and it was faulty intelligence on both sides that gave us the fabled "One more fortnight and Fighter Command was done". The British believed the Luftwaffe to be much larger than it really was and the Germans believed the RAF to be much smaller than it was and they seriously underestimated British fighter production capabilities."

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._that_the_polish_had_some_of_the_best/cfmn3yx

confirms what Overy wrote and he mentions another source

 

[stevieji]

just found that entry, might be interesting to you:

Of course I'm interested. The figures given there suggest that the RAF had 1200 pilots in June 1940 and 1800 by December - so must have trained 600 PLUS the number lost during the battle, in only 6 months. It doesn't say 'fighter pilots', but I suppose that's the assumption.

I was going to mention the Polish and Czech squadrons - the myth is that Dowding didn't rate them and was reluctant to use them until he was desperate for pilots. My feeling was that if they that desperate they would have been used sooner, but it's so hard to see the truth beyond the myth sometimes - probably more so for me than for you.

I wonder if you have seen the 1969 British film 'Battle of Britain'? I'm not sure how it would play to a German audience, but I'm sure you would find it interesting. It contains most of the myths current at the time, while still being 'historically accurate', if you see what I mean - they didn't set out to tell lies, but wouldn't want to let the truth get in the way of what is a very good story.

 

[stevieji]

confirms what Overy wrote and he mentions another source

Looking at the 'big picture' - the balance of power in June 1940, I just don't think I'd go as far as your sources. To say that "The Battle of Britain wasn't even a close contest, the Germans never stood a chance" is just replacing one myth with another. It's more complicated than that - but I don't have too many problems with the data as you present it - I'm just chatting now.

I do think the Luftwaffe could have won - if it had continued with the overall strategy of destroying Fighter Command, by which I mean attacking the airfields and the fighter production facilities. Tactically there were things that could have been done differently - and things that were learned as the battle progressed - on both sides. If you look at the attrition rates overall, though, the RAF was losing fighters at a significantly faster rate than the Luftwaffe. The RAF had no choice but to concentrate on stopping the German bombers and was therefore vulnerable to the escorting Me 109s - so the Luftwaffe was losing more aircraft, but fewer fighters - and ultimately it was all about the fighters. If this pressure had been maintained I'm not sure Fighter Command could have survived the attrition rate in the long term. It's certainly debatable - and would have been close, either way.
These figures are interesting ...
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html
The British production effort is a story in itself.

 

[gladius2metal]

Looking at the 'big picture' - the balance of power in June 1940, I just don't think I'd go as far as your sources. To say that "The Battle of Britain wasn't even a close contest, the Germans never stood a chance" is just replacing one myth with another. It's more complicated than that - but I don't have too many problems with the data as you present it - I'm just chatting now.

well, the Luftwaffe wasn't build for such an operation nor was anyone trained for it. Furthermore, they seemed to have no clue that the British mounted a centralized defense and also didn't really got the Radar. The Luftwaffe was a serious threat and the British were really scared, but in hindsight, nope not really a chance. Even if the Fighter Command lost almost all aircraft, what next? Sealion, not gonna happen. The Allies needed ages to bring down German industry with strategic bombers. Depends of course how you define "winning".

I do think the Luftwaffe could have won - if it had continued with the overall strategy of destroying Fighter Command, by which I mean attacking the airfields and the fighter production facilities. Tactically there were things that could have been done differently - and things that were learned as the battle progressed - on both sides. If you look at the attrition rates overall, though, the RAF was losing fighters at a significantly faster rate than the Luftwaffe. The RAF had no choice but to concentrate on stopping the German bombers and was therefore vulnerable to the escorting Me 109s - so the Luftwaffe was losing more aircraft, but fewer fighters - and ultimately it was all about the fighters. If this pressure had been maintained I'm not sure Fighter Command could have survived the attrition rate in the long term. It's certainly debatable - and would have been close, either way.
These figures are interesting ...
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html
The British production effort is a story in itself.

the main problem is, every pilot of the Luftwaffe was KIA or POW. According to Overy, exactly 3 (as far as I remember) of all captured pilots were trained NOT before the war. Whereas the Fighter Command had a great training program in place.

with a lot of luck, the right strategy and way better intelligence maybe. If they would have understood the radar problematic and manage to destroy them. Furthermore, concentrated and successful attacks on airfields, but they destroyed less than 100 planes on the ground.
next video will come probably this friday, a bit more numbers.