Battle of Britain was won by...the Royal Navy?

[heinkill]

Just read a precis of a new article in History Today magazine in which three UK military historians (one naval, one air warfare and one land warfare) claim the RAF victory over the Luftwaffe was incidental to the real deterrant for launching Operation SeaLion, the Royal Navy.

"To claim that Germany failed to invade in 1940 because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of fighter command is hogwash. (Andrew Gordon, head of maritime history at UK Joint Services Command Staff College).

"Churchill created the myth of The Few for his own reasons.

"The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet."

Response from BOB pilot Air Commodore Peter Brothers? "I'm afraid the Royal Navy would have had a rather thin time of it if there had been no Battle of Britain. The German air force would have done what the Japanese did in Singapore. The Germans had Stuka dive bombers that would have made mincemeat of the Navy....The Battle of Britain was won by the people, firstly by radar, secondly by those who made the ammunition and aircraft and thirdly by the ground crews and fourthly by the pilots who flew them."

As we come up to marking the 66th anniversary of BOB, my money is with old Pete. I gather 'a rather thin time of it' is BOB speak for having to swim all the way home.

[Jester_159th]

It's quite sad actually that a new trend has appeared in British historians over the past few years. It now seems to be "fashionable" in historical circles to try and denegrate our past heroes.

Mr Gordon's comments are just another example of this. Other examples I've seen include the new theory that We didn't defeat the Spannish Armada, but could have all stayed home and left it to the weather and that the skill of the longbowmen at Agincourt had nothing what-so-ever to do with the 5000 strong English army defeating the 30,000 strong French army. Apparently that was nothing more than a crowd control disaster and they all drowned in the mud after simply falling over.

I find Mr Gordon's comments especially offensive though, since (considering the position he holds) he manages to completely ignore all the lessons history has taught us. He's obviously never heard of Pearl Harbour or the Prince of Wales and Repulse!

[Pat_Pattle]

What won the Battle of Britain was the English Channel! Without that obstacle the Germans would have overrun us in a matter of months if not weeks.

Had the LW acheived air superiority for long enough to mount the invasion, I'm sure the RN would have decimated the barges before they got enough material ashore to do anything with.

I don't think Pete Brothers is right about the stukas though, from what I've read the LW didn't posses the type of bombs needed to pierce the armour of our battleships.

Then again I look around at the state of this country and what a greedy, selffish bunch the British have become and wonder if it was worth it

Just my tuppence worth

[Jester_159th]

I think you'll find the Luftwaffe's bombs were every bit as capable as the Japanese variety.

If the Luftwaffe had stuck to it's primary goal of knocking out Fighter Command and secured air superiority over southern England, the channel and the coastal areas, the RN would never have made it to the English Channel. The examples I mentioned are proof of the effectiveness of air strikes against ships. It's why there hasn't been a new battleship launched since the end of World War 2.

[Rummy]

Truth is always in the middle.

[heinkill]

I have quite a large middle and if it contains the truth no amount of staring into my navel has found it yet



I'm also reading an alternative history novel called World War 2.1 (John Birmingham) in which the Japanese win Midway and occupy Hawaii, and Hitler makes peace with Russia and invades Britain.

It's about as useful an analysis of history as three fat profs in the UK analysing the Battle of Britain from a distance of sixty years with the sole and obvious aim of being controversial and selling a few more magazines.

[ukbeejay]

"Hindsight is an exact science" and "it's always easy to be wise after the event"; two phrases that spring to my mind whenever I hear of this old chestnut! We have access today to a glut of information and details that were not available to either side of the conflict at the time, intelligence that would have most definitely changed their approach and tactics during the battle. There was also much in the way of misinformation and misconception in both camps. These inconclusive, indeterminable and irrelevant musings and ponderings of modern day revisionists always miss the basic truths. Hitler and Goering BELIEVED that they needed to eliminate the RAF before they could ever attempt the Channel crossing invasion. Churchill and Dowding BELIEVED that Fighter Command was all that stood in their way and, most important of all, the pilots and crews all BELIEVED that the future and security of Britain as a nation rested on their shoulders and in that honest held belief fought, worked and died. The present day analysts can guess at the 'what if's 'or 'could have beens' for as long as they like but in my mind the Battle of Britain was not only the main reason for Hitler diverting his attention towards the East but also the most decisive and significant battle of WWII.

[Tako_Kichi]

I'm also reading an alternative history novel called World War 2.1 (John Birmingham) in which the Japanese win Midway and occupy Hawaii, and Hitler makes peace with Russia and invades Britain.

Talking of alternative history novels I always enjoy reading the early Len Deighton novel 'SS-GB' first published in 1978. It is set in England after the German victory and tells the story of a British Police Inspector who starts out investigating what appears to be a simple murder and in typical Deighton style the plot thickens and twists and turns in all directions. Gripping stuff! Deighton's attention to detail and his research to get historical accuracy make you wonder if Britain would really have been like that if Operation Sealion had gone ahead.

Hmm, I haven't read it in a while, maybe it's time to pull it out of the bookcase again .

[Bader]

I thought Derek Robinson lost the plot a bit with his last book "Invasion 1940" which suggested that the Navy won the Battle of Britain. He made a lot of good points, but it's so dangerous to analyse this so long after the event. Air power was a new weapon and deeply feared (and revered) at the time. We don't have that in the same way today.

Robinson writes great fiction though (Piece of Cake, Good Clean Fight).

[Wheelie]

I think you'll find the Luftwaffe's bombs were every bit as capable as the Japanese variety.

If the Luftwaffe had stuck to it's primary goal of knocking out Fighter Command and secured air superiority over southern England, the channel and the coastal areas, the RN would never have made it to the English Channel. The examples I mentioned are proof of the effectiveness of air strikes against ships. It's why there hasn't been a new battleship launched since the end of World War 2.

Funnily enough, I'm just reading "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay, which is probably the most comprehensive BoB book out there. The chapter on "Sealion" goes into how successful a German naval invasion might have been - He's pretty dismissive of it as a plan "the best that can be said...it was a terrible gamble", and the reasons being the Luftwaffe only having a handful of obsolete torpedo bombers (He 115s), and the lack of a bomb heavy enough to penetrate the deck armour of a British battleship, plus the fact that the barges would have made about 3 knots, and been swamped by anything more than a light swell.

So whilst it's possible to have some sympathy for the fact that Sealion would never have worked, imagine the effect of German air supremacy - no Bomber command, the possibility of unlimited and unopposed area bombing, parachute assault...

I think it's risky to compare Pearl Harbour at this point - these were attacks against moored (and in some cases dry docked) ships, and I believe the majority of sinkings were made by torpedo attack, whereas the dive bombers attacked surrounding land targets and airstrips. Must watch the film again for more accurate reseach

[Bader]

Ha. Yes indeed...






"The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Bungay is absolutely excellent. The best, along with Battle of Britain "Then and Now".

[Jester_159th]

Good points Wheelie. You will notice though, I never said that Sealion would have succeeded with or without air superiority. The points about the barges, the weather etc are all valid, and considering how close the airborne invasion of Crete came to total failure, the chances are that had the Germans gone that route in an attempt to capture a port (Dover for example) they would have failed.

As to the possible effectiveness of German bombs against the British battleships, we'll never know, however, as I mentioned the Japanese sank Peince of Wales and Replulse while they were at sea and at action stations. To the best of my knowledge, their bombs were no better than what was available to the Luftwaffe. Your point about Pearl Harbour though is very valid.

However, as far as the damage obsolete torpedo bombers can do, bear in mind the importance of the Swordfish attack on Bismarck. Although not fatal in themselves, they prevented the ship from manuvouring. If we assume the German intention would have been to keep the RN out of the channel the same damage to a British battleship would have been sufficient.

[Wheelie]

As to the possible effectiveness of German bombs against the British battleships, we'll never know, however, as I mentioned the Japanese sank Peince of Wales and Replulse while they were at sea and at action stations. To the best of my knowledge, their bombs were no better than what was available to the Luftwaffe. Your point about Pearl Harbour though is very valid.

However, as far as the damage obsolete torpedo bombers can do, bear in mind the importance of the Swordfish attack on Bismarck. Although not fatal in themselves, they prevented the ship from manuvouring. If we assume the German intention would have been to keep the RN out of the channel the same damage to a British battleship would have been sufficient.

Absolutely agree about the Swordfish, though the loss rates were terrible. Incidentally, both the PoW and the Repulse were sunk by torpedos (11 hits out of 49 lanched)- there were altitude bombers in the attack, but out of two waves of (I believe) 25 , only one scored a hit which "started a small fire" on the Repulse.

It took 617 Squadron and two 5-ton tallboys to pierce the deck of and sink the Tirpitz...

[McMick]

No matter what historians say, the Germans believed they could not mount an invasion without air superiority, which means that the FACT of the matter is that the RAF WON THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Now, I'm certain that the Germans would have been MUCH more keen on invasion if the RN didn't exist, or was incredibly weak, so obviously yes, the RN had an INFLUENCE on the outcome, but was not the deciding factor in the least.

BTW I have conclusive proof that it was the UK that won the Battle of Britain, NOT the Eskimos as *some* historians might would have you believe.

The question that always mad me go "hmmmm" was, if the UK HAD been invaded, would the U.S. have tried to do anything about it, if not before Pearl Harbor, then after?

[Jester_159th]

No matter what historians say, the Germans believed they could not mount an invasion without air superiority, which means that the FACT of the matter is that the RAF WON THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Now, I'm certain that the Germans would have been MUCH more keen on invasion if the RN didn't exist, or was incredibly weak, so obviously yes, the RN had an INFLUENCE on the outcome, but was not the deciding factor in the least.

Fully agree. Well said.

BTW I have conclusive proof that it was the UK that won the Battle of Britain, NOT the Eskimos as *some* historians might would have you believe.

Eskimos? Never heard that one before. I thought they'd proved catagorically it was Ben Affleck?

The question that always mad me go "hmmmm" was, if the UK HAD been invaded, would the U.S. have tried to do anything about it, if not before Pearl Harbor, then after?

THAT is an excellent question. Considering the distances involved, I think it possible that, without setting up a forward base to bring their air power into play, the US may have considered an invasion to liberate the British Isles a very risky venture and would have been likely to cause a disproportionate number of American casualties.

A possible (less costly) alternative for the US and free British and Commonwealth troops (assuming there were any) would have been either concentrating in italy (assuming the North African campaign had the same historical outcome) an invasion of the Balkans and Greece, or an invasion of Southern France.

I would have thought though that the actions of the British govt, would have had a major influence on US planning. For example, had the British govt. sued for peace after invasion (not likely really considering Churchill's stance on surrender but a possibility none the less), then the US govt. may well have felt it in their best interests to leave Europe alone. If however the remaining British and Commonwealth troops had continued to fight, the pressure on the US govt. to enter the European conflict (especially after Pearl Harbour if Hitler still declared war on the US as with the historical events) could have become intense.

It's an incredibly complex "what if.." scenario though, with so many possible variables that you could easilly reach a vast number of possible outcomes.