Battle of Britain - 80 Years ago today

[fordson]

10 July 1940 is recognized as the "Official " start of the Battle of Britain. It progressed thru stages of ever increasing levels of intensity starting with Luftwaffe attacks on Channel shipping, progressing thru attacks on RAF Stations and the Chain Home network (not that the Luftwaffe knew what they were at the time), then in late August, switching Tactics to "Terror Bombing" of major cities. This last gave the RAF the breathing space it needed to recover, some what, from this war of attrition. The final daylight attacks, in preparation for invasion (Operation Sealion) occurred in September, particularly on the 7th and 15th (Which is recognized as BoB Day). Operation Sealion was postponed indefinitely in late September. The night Blitz started, overlapping with the last of the daylight attacks, and lasted thru May of 1941.

A personal note: My wife's parents both served in the RN, with uncles and aunts serving in all arms of the British military. Her grandparents were bombed out in Portsmouth.

 

[Rudi]

I enjoy the film. They stuff a lot into a 3 hour movie. The Spanish Air Force was kind to let them use the He 111s and Bf 109s, or Baochons I believe. I don't know where they found the English planes. "Never was so much owed to so few by so many."

 

[Absalom]

If you have some time sitting around and avoiding social activities this summer, check out James Holland's book "The Battle of Britain".

It is is a sizable tome, and if you just want action stories about fighters buzzing around, this may not be your cup of tea. But I re-read it recently after I got it for Kindle, because it is the best comprehensive history of that momentous time.

Instead of strictly focusing on the air combat over Britain, Holland starts with the RAF's role in France and describes the events as it becomes clear that the tactical air support for the BEF will morph into an all-out fight for Britain herself. He also places it into the overall context of the Atlantic battle and other aspects of the war, using eyewitness accounts and perspectives from both sides. Well worth a read.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

As the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo "It was a close run thing" though I doubt the Germans could have pulled it off .They didn't adopt a drop tank which meant the Me 109s only had about 10 minutes flying time over the UK, the US air attaché at the time noted the German bombers had inadequate defensive armament. The Germans were trying to conduct a strategic bombing campaign with medium bombers, the death of General Wever in 1936 led to the cancellation of their four engine bomber program. The Stukas had to be withdrawn after 10 days due to unacceptable losses, German air crews and aircraft lost over Great Britain were a total loss, they had a problem with Kanalkrankheit-"Channel sickness"-ditching in the English Channel was something they feared. The fighter pilots constantly complained they were chained to the bombers.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

In hindsight we see an inevitable Allied triumph. It was not so. The best leader the allies had, Adolph Hitler, catastrophically interfered to great Allied advantage, starting with allowing the Allied army to escape Dunkirk, and including the shift of the air attacks from British airfields which were near collapse to bombing cities.

 

[fordson]

If you have some time sitting around and avoiding social activities this summer, check out James Holland's book "The Battle of Britain".

It is is a sizable tome, and if you just want action stories about fighters buzzing around, this may not be your cup of tea. But I re-read it recently after I got it for Kindle, because it is the best comprehensive history of that momentous time.

Instead of strictly focusing on the air combat over Britain, Holland starts with the RAF's role in France and describes the events as it becomes clear that the tactical air support for the BEF will morph into an all-out fight for Britain herself. He also places it into the overall context of the Atlantic battle and other aspects of the war, using eyewitness accounts and perspectives from both sides. Well worth a read.

Very good book. Might I add some others for your CV19 summer isolation reading on this subject:

The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay
The Hardest Day by Alfred Price (highly recommended almost minute by minute account of the 18 Aug attacks)
Fighter Boys by Patrick Bishop
The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Denis Richards

For reading on Operation Sea lion:
Operation Sea Lion by Leo McKinstry
We March Against England by Robert Forczyk
Invasion 1940 by Derek Robinson
With Wings Like Eagles by Micheal Korda

And from the political side as to Churchill's raise to PM:
Six Minutes in May by Nicholas Shakespeare

There's more but this should keep you entertained for a while

 

[BearBio]

I read a book on the rise of the German military. The advantage was all to the British. Coast watchers, Dutch Resistance and picket boats gave early warning to the British of German flights and likely destinations. Britain had more fighters that had several times the flying time and could respond more quickly to areas where they were needed. Germany was using converted airliners and cargo planes (They had been designed for easy conversion during the 1930's). Britain also had most of the British Channel patrolled by rescue boats for downed pilots.

It is largely recognized that Operation Sea Lion was to keep England occupied so Hitler could win in Russia (We know how that went, don't we?).

Churchill is known to have sacrificed British lives to force America into the war. Given his past history (invention of concentration camps during the Boer War, creation of the Black and Tans in Ireland, which Himmler used as a model for the Gestapo, sunk a Dutch sub that sighted the Japanese Pearl Harbor Fleet, etc.), Churchill was NOT a nice guy!

We let France dictate the surrender terms after WWI and Pershing said, after signing the Armistice, we will have to fight this war again in 20 years because no country can survive under the surrender conditions France dictated.

 

[fordson]

I read a book on the rise of the German military. The advantage was all to the British. Coast watchers, Dutch Resistance and picket boats gave early warning to the British of German flights and likely destinations. Britain had more fighters that had several times the flying time and could respond more quickly to areas where they were needed. Germany was using converted airliners and cargo planes (They had been designed for easy conversion during the 1930's). Britain also had most of the British Channel patrolled by rescue boats for downed pilots.

It is largely recognized that Operation Sea Lion was to keep England occupied so Hitler could win in Russia (We know how that went, don't we?).

Churchill is known to have sacrificed British lives to force America into the war. Given his past history (invention of concentration camps during the Boer War, creation of the Black and Tans in Ireland, which Himmler used as a model for the Gestapo, sunk a Dutch sub that sighted the Japanese Pearl Harbor Fleet, etc.), Churchill was NOT a nice guy!

We let France dictate the surrender terms after WWI and Pershing said, after signing the Armistice, we will have to fight this war again in 20 years because no country can survive under the surrender conditions France dictated.

The Chain Home network - RADAR - was their greatest advantage. That and fighting over their home ground which worked for them and against the Luftwaffe. The RAF had a force multiplier in that they could retrieve crew and aircraft brought down over Britain. Pilots who were not casualties were recycled back into the fight. Also, with a home ground advantage, pilots were not captured (POWs), so flight crew attrition was less. Same for aircraft that were damaged but repairable. Lord Beaverbrook established production and repair facilities that returned aircraft (later on) at almost the loss rate. This situation reversed itself later in the war to favor the Luftwaffe during the Battle for Germany, but by then manpower and production facilities were so depleted that the advantage was loss.
Hitler didn't really want to occupy Britain, he wanted to secure his western flank (and even have Britain as an Allie) to free up resources in his fight against Russia (USSR).
I'm not so sure about your info on Churchill as he was a SubAlternate (2th LT) during the Boer War. I'd like to know the source.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Pershing-who was of German ancestry-realized the Germans had not been decisively defeated in the West and it was civil unrest-the "stab in the back"-that drove them to seek the Armistice, and the German High Command let the civilians sign the Armistice-and take the blame.
The Germans could not have pulled "Sea Lion" off-they didn't have the sea lift capacity, had not conducted the extended and extensive reconaissance-think D-Day-the Kriegsmarine suffered devastating losses in the Norwegian Campaign and would have been slaughtered in the Channel.

 

[Dave_n]

"Concentration Camps" were established by the British Authorities in South Africa during the Second Boer War (as mentioned above WSC was not a serving officer during that war, he was a War Correspondent). He did serve as a subaltern (less than Captain) during the campaign against the Mahdi in the Sudan, taking part in one of the last British Army cavalry charges. The CCs were established to bring pressure on the Boer commandos (a battalion sized grouping) by removing their families from their farms, thus reducing supplies etc. WSC had nothing to do with these. A similar concept was used to avoid pressure on families by the Chinese "communist-influenced" rebels in Malaysia during the Malaysian emergency by FM Gerald Templar in the middle 1950s, which enabled the British Army to defeat the attempted takeover of peninsular Malaya. Dave_n

 

[Telecaster]

80 years. I was born about a quarter century after the Battle of Britain, and never imagined a time it would be "80 years ago."

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The concentration camps in South Africa were established by Kitchener and probably inspired by the "recontrado" policy of Weyler in Cuba-which didn't work that well either.
The German admirals had no faith in their ability to launch a seaborne invasion, they worked ceaselessly to make Hitler understand this was not a river crossing on a larger scale, and he admitted that at sea he was a coward.
Part of the D-Day planning was the massive logistical buildup-cf the two "Mulberries", logistics and re-supply were one of the Germans' weaknesses.

 

[Kurusu]

I'm getting old.

When I was around 13/14 years old(1973/74) I watched a series of documentaries on tv called "The World at War". The men(from both sides) that fought the Battle of Britain were in it(the ones that survived the war), they were only in their mid 50s then.

 

[Farmer17]

The comment earlier about Dunkirk I believe was the key and the only way to achieve victory for the Germans. Had they captured all the Brits on the beach they could have probably then signed a peace treaty with England then went after Russia which was what they really wanted but I still doubt they could have beat the Russians even though they came close. Also if you have Netflix they have a series called WWII in Color that has 13 episodes and many hours of actual films of the battle of Britain and WWII that are quite good.

 

[Absalom]

The concentration camps in South Africa were established by Kitchener and probably inspired by the "recontrado" policy of Weyler in Cuba-which didn't work that well either.
.....

Well, in South Africa you can make a good argument that they actually worked. The second, guerilla phase of the Boer War was pretty much a pointless exercise. But without getting too much into a topic that has nothing to do with the Battle of Britain, I'd just say that in the long run, just like the American South in the Civil War, the Boers won by losing.

 

[Dave_n]

If you look at the BBC news from yesterday, there is a lovely series of shots of the BoB Historic flight's Hurricane and Spitfire overflying Ditchfield in Sussex honoring the funeral procession of Dame Vera Lynn who died a couple of weeks ago. She was known as the "Forces Sweetheart" and traveled extensively including quite a few weeks with the 14th Army in the Burma Campaign. In fact she had a top 10 reissue of some of her songs at the age of approx 97. Well worth watching. Dave_n

 

[Absalom]

Just a general observation:

I find the general textbook narrative about the early years of WW II, which has Hitler triumphant, storming from victory to victory from 1939 to 1941 except for the Battle of Britain, quite a misinterpretation.

In fall 1940, Hitler from his own perspective found himself in a terrible situation, exactly the wrong war and pretty much the opposite of what he wanted.

The country he saw as his target and natural enemy, Russia, was his partner in crime, his most reliable ally and supplier of raw materials.

The country he saw as a natural ally and with which he had envisioned dividing the world, Britain, had turned out to be his most implacable enemy, with America's resources lurking behind it.

His other ally, Mussolini, kept getting in trouble and forced Hitler to commit resources and fight in places he didn't want to go and had no interest in, like the Balkans and North Africa. Darn those "victories".

So he'd really hoped the British would fold. I don't think he was ever serious about Sea Lion. But when the Battle of Britain failed to break Britain, Hitler's goose was cooked. The Russian campaign was a much closer call for Stalin than is generally appreciated, but with Britain keeping up the good fight in the West, the eventual outcome was much more assured.

 

[kmyers]

Very good book. Might I add some others for your CV19 summer isolation reading on this subject:

The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay
The Hardest Day by Alfred Price (highly recommended almost minute by minute account of the 18 Aug attacks)
Fighter Boys by Patrick Bishop
The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Denis Richards

For reading on Operation Sea lion:
Operation Sea Lion by Leo McKinstry
We March Against England by Robert Forczyk
Invasion 1940 by Derek Robinson
With Wings Like Eagles by Micheal Korda

And from the political side as to Churchill's raise to PM:
Six Minutes in May by Nicholas Shakespeare

There's more but this should keep you entertained for a while

I think I have most of those. Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend is another fine one which also tells the history between the wars of the build of both German and British air power. Townsend was a fighter pilot who fought in the Battle of Britain.

 

[Kurusu]

I think I have most of those. Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend is another fine one which also tells the history between the wars of the build of both German and British air power. Townsend was a fighter pilot who fought in the Battle of Britain.

That one I have. For more than 40 years now.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

I'm getting old.

When I was around 13/14 years old(1973/74) I watched a series of documentaries on tv called "The World at War". The men(from both sides) that fought the Battle of Britain were in it(the ones that survived the war), they were only in their mid 50s then.

A classic. My son and I are binge watching that now.