The Battle of Britain.

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3900
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Attrition » 26 Aug 2010 13:39

Mainwaring: A typical shabby nazi trick!

dcmatkins
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Sep 2004 21:41
Location: cleveland england

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by dcmatkins » 28 Sep 2010 09:14

It has probably been mentioned before.
I would thoroughly recommend the book " The most dangerous enemy A history of the Battle of Britain" by Stephen Bungay.
It is an excellent read. Answers alot of questions. Both from a political, strategic and economic point of view. Which is often overlooked and forgotten about, in context of this battle.

The Germans before the war looked at the possibility of an air war with the UK. They realised it would be a long drawn out campaigin. Though never buit a long range heavy pay load bomber to do so. Even throughout the entire war.

Personally, I think the Germans generally over confident. Hitler thought his Luftwaffe would finish the BEF off at Dunkirk. Goring was an intelligent man. Throughout the batte he failed to listen too his operational commanders which were facing ongoing operational problems.

The directive that set up the Luftwaffe was primary to support the army. Hence the role of the Stuka. Whereas the ME110 was intended to win air superiority over foreign airspace.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3900
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Attrition » 28 Sep 2010 11:14

I incline to the view that the victory in France looks less like a strategic decision and more like an operational success each time I look at it.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 15:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Graeme Sydney » 02 Oct 2010 11:39

Attrition wrote:I incline to the view that the victory in France looks less like a strategic decision and more like an operational success each time I look at it.
:D That's my view.

Germany lost the war when they attacked Norway. Between lost military/naval resources, trying up mil resources and costing time that's when they lost their chance to defeat Britain. And they would never dominate Europe without dominating/controlling Britain and the approaches to Europe.

Germany had several choices to dominate Britain; diplomatic isolation, blockade or invasion. They achieved none of the above. Norway was about outflanking and making the submarine/naval blockading of Britain effective. Excepting for miracles, in 1939 Germany didn't have the resources to both invade Norway and defeat France and invade Britain. They took the scattergun approach and failed in their primary aim.

State and maintain the aim. Basic stuff for a strategist, but what would you expect when you give Generals job to a fawning work dodging corporal.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3900
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Attrition » 02 Oct 2010 14:14

I suppose from the Germans' point of view the chronic underestimation of Soviet ability was the worst mistake. Had the USSR crumpled as it was supposed to, the western conquests would have been invaluable in finishing off the British.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 15:19
Location: Australia

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Graeme Sydney » 02 Oct 2010 21:31

Attrition wrote:I suppose from the Germans' point of view the chronic underestimation of Soviet ability was the worst mistake.
It wasn't a German point of view it was a Hitler delusion. The 'kick the door in and the rest of the house will fall over' is the most optimistic outcome you could wish for. Military Science is not about wishful thinking :wink: :roll: .

Aquarius1011
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 19 Jul 2012 18:29
Location: Cape Town, South Africa.

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Aquarius1011 » 15 Sep 2012 19:22

Today is Battle of Britain day. (And the national day of a country in Europe I thought of.)
A mind is like a parachute - it works best when open.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3900
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Attrition » 15 Sep 2012 20:01

Graeme Sydney wrote:
Attrition wrote:I suppose from the Germans' point of view the chronic underestimation of Soviet ability was the worst mistake.
It wasn't a German point of view it was a Hitler delusion. The 'kick the door in and the rest of the house will fall over' is the most optimistic outcome you could wish for. Military Science is not about wishful thinking :wink: :roll: .
It worked in 1939 and 1940.

Cultus
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Nov 2018 04:12
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Battle of Britain.

Post by Cultus » 31 Dec 2021 06:33

Does anyone out there know how the Calais battery came to be named Batterie Oldenburg? And what’s more how come it was also known as The Moulin Rouge? Thanks.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”