75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain

[IZ0JUB 162]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202341/Remembering-Britain-s-hardest-day-Spitfires-Hurricanes-skies-75-years-battle-scuppered-plans-Nazi-invasion.html

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

We have a massive event taking place at nearby Goodwood on 15th September. Virtually every flying Spitfire, Hurrican and Blenhiem from all over the world are due to take part. We''ve already got our tickets booked. They are leaving the grandstands in place from the Revival Meeting the previous weekend so that people will get a good view of the action. Howevery the amount of aircraft taking part will mean that anyone parking outside the airfield will also get a pretty good view.

http://www.battleofbritainday.co.uk/

[brett 2,310]

[allardjd 1,853]

An epic battle, hard fought on both sides, with some good UK decisions and some poor German ones tipping the balance, barely.

 

The Spitfire, the Chain Low and Chain Home radar system and the centralized fighter director stations were all vital, and of course required some foresight and up-front investment in time and treasure if they were to be available when needed.  That's a lesson for today's politicians that is largely lost on them. You cannot prepare for the next war when it begins - that's way too late.

 

Using the Spitfires against the fighters and directing the Hurricanes against everything else was tactical, but also vital.  On the German side, switching from attacking airfields to attacking cities was not the brightest move they ever made.  A few days or weeks more pounding the fighter fields might have made all the difference and turned the result the other way.  Thankfully their leadership snatched defeat from the jaws of what might have been a different outcome.

 

Anyway, the western world owes a debt of thanks to "the few" and to some of the far-seeing politicians and military leaders who made sure that England was ready (barely) for what was to come.

 

John

[hifly 925]

As you say John, the balance was fine. So many battles have been won by the smallest of margins, either through judgement good or bad or sheer luck.

 

We did get through the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth but I think a German invasion of Britain would have been unsuccessful. I recall a documentary a few years ago about a war game played out by current German and British commanders based on the original German invasion plans.

 

Although the invasion force landed successfully on the south coast and penetrated about 20-25 miles inland, the Royal Navy's supremacy in the English Channel effectively cut off their supply routes and with no reinforcements the invaders would have been trapped and overcome.

 

Of course it never came to that as Hitler turned his eyes east to Russia and as we say, the rest is history.

[allardjd 1,853]

It might have been a fine-run thing if they'd got to the point of invading.  Their invasion plan pre-supposed that the RAF was defeated and that the Luftwaffe had air superiority or even supremacy over the Channel and southern England.  If the RAF were decimated by the preceding air battle and the U-Boat fleet and maybe even the High Seas Fleet were effectively committed to defending the supply lines from the Royal Navy with a little help from the Luftwaffe, and if the remainder of the Luftwaffe were providing Blitzkreig-style close air support to the invasion army, the defenders would have had their hands full, as would the Royal Navy in the channel.  On the plus side, for England, there was by then a pretty formidable minefield in the Channel that would have made it tough sledding for the U-Boats.  

 

The Germans were pretty good about seizing an airhead or two in conjunction with an invasion, either with paratroops or by simply landing transports full of soldiers on an airport.  They did that in Norway and Crete at least.  Seizing an operable airfield on the English side would let them establish Stukas for close air support of the invaders, the capability to run an airborne supply and reinforcements route from the continent with Ju-52s and would provide some basing for Me-109s on the English side of the water to help defend the Ju-87s and Ju-52s from what little remained of the RAF and from the Fleet Air Arm.  The Germans were no slouches in land warfare either, but would have been mostly deprived of the Panzers they relied on so heavily elsewhere.  They did OK without them in Crete, however.

 

I believe there was some reserve of RAF capability held back in the north, partly to defend against air raids from Norway, Holland, Denmark and northern Germany.  In the event of an air disaster in the south, some of that force might have been able to be used in the south to oppose an invading army.  Given what we know now, I don't think I'd bet a plug nickel either way.  If Rommel were commanding, it would have been a tough go.

 

In the final analysis, the Germans proved to be masters of almost winning, but couldn't quite make the last yard.

 

John