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

[stevieji]

Furthermore, they seemed to have no clue that the British mounted a centralized defense and also didn't really got the Radar.

Very important, certainly, but in any case there are targets to attack and you send aircraft - there was no way to evade the defensive measures, even if you do understand how it works.

Even if the Fighter Command lost almost all aircraft, what next? Sealion, not gonna happen.

Well yes - very good point - and that's another matter entirely. The Royal Navy would have made quite a mess of an invasion force - even if it took heavy losses from the air - and that was certainly understood at the time - the navy was prepared to pay any price. I'm not sure anything like the scale of 'Overlord' would have been necessary, but even so, I can't see how Sea Lion could have succeeded.
So my position now appears to be that the Luftwaffe was probably capable of achieving a pyrrhic victory, but only with the right strategic command.

Furthermore, concentrated and successful attacks on airfields, but they destroyed less than 100 planes on the ground.

Yes that's true, because they were generally in the air by the time the bombers arrived. Also the fighters didn't use runways - and it would be difficult to put an entire field out of action.

Looking forward to the next one. I'll try not to be such a pain, though.

 

[Dina1954]

I do think the Luftwaffe could have won -
These figures are interesting ...
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html
The British production effort is a story in itself.

I do not agree they could not have won.In the year 1940 Germany produced 1868 Me-109 look at the figures for 5 months for UK in http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html

 

[stevieji]

I do not agree they could not have won.In the year 1940 Germany produced 1868 Me-109 look at the figures for 5 months for UK in http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/document-42.html

I already posted that reference - back on page 1.
I haven't seen Me109 production data though - where did you get the 1868 figure from?

 

[Dina1954]

I already posted that reference - back on page 1.
I haven't seen Me109 production data though - where did you get the 1868 figure from?

Sorry missed that, about the figures source Warplanes of the Third Reich by William Green page 543.Produktion of Me-109 in 1939 was 1540 and in 1941 was it 2628. That is not an impressive production you can nearly change Churchills famous words to the German pilots, NEVER HAVE SO FEW HAD SO MUCH TO BLAME FOR SO MANY.

 

[stevieji]

Sorry missed that, about the figures source Warplanes of the Third Reich by William Green page 543.Produktion of Me-109 in 1939 was 1540 and in 1941 was it 2628. That is not an impressive production you can nearly change Churchills famous words to the German pilots, NEVER HAVE SO FEW HAD SO MUCH TO BLAME FOR SO MANY.

I did a little digging as these figures seemed terribly low, given that I have almost 34,000 Me 109s produced between 1937-45. Found this ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

Your figures are very close to those given here for 1940/41, so yes, I do take your point.

More interesting, though - and nothing to do with The Battle of Britain - are the production figures for 1944. I was under the impression that German aircraft production was severely affected by allied bombing and material supply problems, but somehow the Luftwaffe produced 12,807 Me 109 fighters, as well as 979 Me 109 'reconnaissance' aircraft. I'm amazed by this @gladius2metal - seems like there's a nice graphics-rich production story to be told - something like a myth-busting assessment of the effectiveness of the allied bombing campaign - with Albert Speer as the hero?!

 

[Dina1954]

I did a little digging as these figures seemed terribly low, given that I have almost 34,000 Me 109s produced between 1937-45. Found this ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

Your figures are very close to those given here for 1940/41, so yes, I do take your point.

More interesting, though - and nothing to do with The Battle of Britain - are the production figures for 1944. I was under the impression that German aircraft production was severely affected by allied bombing and material supply problems, but somehow the Luftwaffe produced 12,807 Me 109 fighters, as well as 979 Me 109 'Reconnaissance' aircraft. I'm amazed by this @gladius2metal - seems like there's a nice graphics-rich production story to be told - something like a myth-busting assessment of the effectiveness of the allied bombing campaign - with Albert Speer as the hero?!

Wikipedia only show the produktion in 1939 for Sep-Dec in Jan to Aug. they produce 1091 Me-109.Yes Albert Speer did a good jobb for Luftwaffe.

 

[DoomBunny]

Don't take claimed kills from airmen too literally. Air forces as a general rule have a tendency to massively overstate their kill ratios, partly on purpose. Various reasons for this existed, personal ambition, inter-service rivalry, propaganda, multiple reportings of the same target, and the problem of clarifying if something had actually been shot down/bombed. Basically there was an interest in making the records look good, and an ability to easily misrepresent them (deliberately or not).

To give an example, some RAF accounts of the Normandy Campaign give the total of ground kills as higher than the total number of German tanks in Normandy. In reality ground attack accounted for (quoting from memory) about 6% of German tank losses. Airborne examples generally tend to be better, but are still problematic. Certainly I would not believe off-hand the records of a certain squadron as to how many aircraft it had shot down. Comparison instead should be made between sources on both sides if one is to establish such a ratio.

I'd also be very careful of going either way on the "They were never going to win/They won despite almost impossible odds" front. Particularly if we rely on aircraft numbers/production alone we are basing such a decision on a very narrow foundation.

 

[stevieji]

Don't take claimed kills from airmen too literally.

Yeah, this was a particular problem in The Battle of Britain - historians have really only got to the bottom of that since cabinet papers were released in the '90s. At the time (the '40s), the government was more than happy to release figures that were grossly exaggerated - as you say, propaganda played a part.
I do think, though, that accurate figures are now available.

I'd also be very careful of going either way on the "They were never going to win/They won despite almost impossible odds" front. Particularly if we rely on aircraft numbers/production alone we are basing such a decision on a very narrow foundation.

The video we're discussing looks at the 'big picture' - and concludes that the UK was not in serious danger. That's what we've been debating - and not just on production figures, or 'kill' figures, but considering all relevant factors.

 

[DoomBunny]

Indeed, but the last few posts have seemed to concern aircraft production in isolation.

As for kill figures, yes, one can now come up with fairly accurate numbers. I was mainly highlighting Dina's quoting of German figures organic to a specific unit.

 

[stevieji]

Indeed, but the last few posts have seemed to concern aircraft production in isolation.

As for kill figures, yes, one can now come up with fairly accurate numbers. I was mainly highlighting Dina's quoting of German figures organic to a specific unit.

It was, to an extent though, an attritional battle - and part of the assessment has to involve a calculation of the opposing forces at the beginning, middle and end of the battle. So how many fighters at the start, how many lost, how many replaced, are all important.
I've actually changed my opinion - I now agree with Goering, that it was a draw, not a British victory - and it's now clear to me that it wasn't nearly so decisive as we have always been led to believe. Even if the Luftwaffe ahd completely destroyed Fighter Command, the Germans would have had great difficulty mounting a successful invasion, because of the strength of the Royal Navy.

 

[gladius2metal]

be careful about the 1944 rise in production, I was fooled myself, according to recent research: Adam Tooze - Wages of Destruction, it is not true. Speer was a great PR man, but most of his efficiency increases were not a result of his making. I will probably make a video about that, but I need do to further reading and want to reduce my output in WW2 stuff, so it will probably take a while.

 

[stevieji]

Speer was a great PR man, but most of his efficiency increases were not a result of his making.

A complex character, to say the least. To make a 'hero' of him would be a challenge - but it could be ... 'interesting'.

 

[Dina1954]

Don't take claimed kills from airmen too literally........

You are so right about that, ex Luftwaffe claimed 2426 downed planes between 1 July and 31 October 1940, the real number was more than twice less.About the production figures the average monthlt output in 1940 was 155 Me-109 and 313 Spifires and Hurricanes.If we look at the losses for the battle of Brittain and theoretical use this 1 Me-109 against 1,86 Spitfire and Hurricane.RAF grow faster in their fighterforce in 1940 and still faster in 1941.Futhermore RAF pilots who jumped out can go back in service again German pilots will be pow.