Seventy Years Ago This Summer-The Battle of Britain (war, bomb, 1930's)

[Grandstander]

While Churchill contributed the most memorable phrase..."Never has so much been owed.. etc", the architect of this critical British victory was Air Marshall Hugh Dowding, who for a number of reasons, seems to have wound up on the second tier of WW II fame.

It was an astonishing job of foresight on Dowding's part to look ahead several years and correctly imagine the nature of air warfare and what was going to be needed to prevail. While nearly all world attention was on bombers during the 1930's, especially after the film "The Shape of Things To Come" was released, Dowding recognized that the defense of Britain would require more than having the threat of being able to bomb the cities of rival nations. It was Dowding who insisted that the British start designing and producing steel framed monoplanes capable of speeds faster than the bombers. The Spitfire and the Hurricane were no last moment rush jobs, planning for both began in 1934 and contined through the adminsitrations of the so called appeasers.

It was Dowding who grasped how critical radar would be, as well as conceiving the ideas of how to use it best. The extraordinarily smooth operating control center received all relevant data from the radar stations and observer corps, and directed the British squadrons into the air to intecept the enemy armadas. Dowding's system had the effect of multpying the power of the RAF several fold. Neither force nor fuel was wasted patroling in the hopes of encountering the Germans, the RAF remained on the ground until they could be sent straight at an approaching enemy.

Women played a crucial part in the fight. It was the Women's Auxillary Air Force (WAFF) who worked the radar information receiving stations. They became famed for their discipline, calming holding station and continuing to do their jobs even as their centers were being bombed. They packed the parachutes at airfields, operated the barage balloons, analysed recon photos, staffed the communication centers..and were very much in harm's way. Several were decorated for their courage in combat, including one woman who drove a tractor onto a runway, hooked up an unexploded bomb, and towed it away so that the airstrip remained operational.

There are of course a great many controversies among historians regarding the meaning of the battle. Was Hitler ever truly serious about Operation Sea Lion? Did the Luftwafe ever come close to winning the battle? Had Goring kept hitting the British airfields and radar stations instead of switching to bombing cities and industrial targets, would the German have prevailed? If the RAF had been knocked from the skies, and Hitler had ordered Sea Lion to commence, would it have worked?

I do not think that anyone underrates the importance of the British victory, whatever else, it kept them in the war, it kept one European nation with a democractic government still hostile to a fascist dominated continent. It meant that when the US entered the war, it would have a friendly base of power within striking distance of the opponent. It meant that Hitler could not pretend to the German people that England was all but defeated, not while British bombers were making nocturnal visits over German cities.

The Battle of Britain was the first reverse suffered by the Nazi war machine. It showed that the Ubermen could be defeated.

This is a thread for whatever thoughts you may have on any of the above.

[texdav]

After reading alot ;I have to agree that it was his plan more than any other person that actually saved britain. His foresight probably was more accuate in what was needed than an other war planner.Churchills contribution was in leadership and getting American help.I don;t thnik historians can really guess what would ahve happened if Germany had gain air supremacy over Britain.Ceertainly no guess between the wars other than him what the future of warafre was. All one has to do is look at the Bombers will always get thru and the decisive battle between battlehips that was invisioned by all planners and military historian based on WWI.Certainly German plans were brilliant but in the end his defense meant that theiir believes where wrong on what Britain would be forced to do.Decide to sign a armistices more on Geramn terms than thiers.That is what German leaders really wanted.

[noetsi]

I hold a very heretical view of the Battle of Britain - that its importance has been greatly overstated. Looking forward to other invasions, such as Normandy, its clear that such operations were very difficult even with thousands of ships and vast air armadas. The Germans in 1940 had ten destroyers, a handful of cruisers and essentially no battleships (the Bismark was still undergoing trials). Their air force was signficantly less strong relative to the British than the allies had in 44 and the large British fleets, even at signficant loss to itself likely could have destroyed either the invasion or the follow up support, even had the Germans somehow won air surperiority.

Which is moot in many respects, because I am not convinced that Hitler (and particularly the navy) really was serious about the invasion. The did gather some ships, and went through planning, but its clear that they were very doubtful at best at the operation. At no point (even during the brief period when the Germans appeared to winning the upper hand in the air shortly before the bombing of London) did Hitler consider actually launching an invasion - and it would have taken time to get one going after he gave the order.

It goes without saying that if the Germans were highly unlikely to invade regardless of the outcome in the air (and September was the last month that was feasible for an invasion given the channel weather) the air battle was less signficant than usually potrayed. I am reminded of German air ace Galen, commentary on the naval preperations for Sea Lion, that they weren't very impressive at all - just going through the motions.

I am sure I will be the only one arguing this viewpoint And I agree with the comments that GS said, I am just not sure in the end it mattered. The Germans had to invade by September 1940 given their 1941 plans, and I am not convinced they were capable of giving their navy and preperations. The best chance would have been in June and July when there were few ready troops in England. But by September the British had 16 divisions in the south of england alone, far more than the Germans could easily have gotten there.

[Grandstander]

There is sufficient evidence to support an argument which holds that Sea Lion was never more than a threat. Hitler's behavior in the summer and fall of 1940 certainly suggests that his primary goal was getting the British to remove themselves from the war voluntarily. He seems to have believed that this would happen after the fall of France, it may well be the reason for the pause before Dunkirk which allowed the evacuation of the British army and their allies.

When Britain remained defiant, Hitler then concluded that it was because of hotheads like Churchill. He felt that the average British citizen was intelligent and would reach the correct conclusions before long. He believed that the air strikes along with the threat of an invasion, would be enough to cause the British people to force Churchill out of office and replace him with someone willing to conclude a rational peace.

The German naval command had told Hitler that among the indispensible preconditions for an invasion, it had, as Noetsi noted, to be before the end of September, and it could only take place if the RAF had been cleared from the skies. That Hitler then turned Goring loose to try and bring about that second precondition, does suggest that Hitler perhaps was seeing Sea Lion as a reality.

I don't know, I don't think any of us will ever know with certainty. But whether you wish to credit the Battle of Britain with stopping Sea Lion or not, it still ranks as a tremendous victory for the British. As I noted previously...it kept them in the war...it made them legit...it exposed the Nazis as beatable..and it kept Hitler from having a completely free hand in Europe. All of that is extremely important.

And can any of us say with confidence that if the RAF had been knocked from the sky, and Sea Lion was ready to commence, would the Brits have still supported Churchill or might Hitler have gotten his wish regarding a new government?

If you argue that it was not important that Britain won, then you are also arguing that it would not have been important had they lost. I certainly do not think that true.

[noetsi]

I will be the first to admit that what I suggested is speculation. Its based on commentary such as Galen and others about the level of preperation for an invasion, the difficulty in launching major amphibious operations, and the very weak state of the German navy in 1940.

You can't launch cross channel operations on the fly. It took the allies two years to plan Overloard and vast resources. I don't think it was physically possible for the Germans with the resources they had and the narrow time window involved by the time Hitler took the operation seriously to invade Britain in 1940. And by 41 it was obviously too late.

That said GS makes some excellent points about the wisdom of Downing, particularly given the frugal behavior of British governments at the time. One of his very important decisions was to not, as many wanted, use up the fighter command defending France or even Dunkirk (although many fighters were lost there). The French, then and later, saw it quite differently arguing that they might have held on with more RAF support. Commenting on the documentary the World at War in 1973 one senior French officer suggested that the French mistakes had given the British a justification for being selfish...."and they were very selfish."

Regardless of whether the Germans were capable of invading England in 1940, it was widely seen that they were. So the British victory was a huge psychological triumph for the British and a defeat for Hitler. And as GS suggests solidified English support for Churchill.

[texdav]

Whether a invasion would even have been neceassry if the geramns had gained not only a submarine blockage but also air superiority would have made things much different.It for example it would have meant a difference in North africa and many other locations. The germans had originally not planned any invasion of britain before the war. They planned a two pronged surface and sunmarine blockade of Britain. The war starting four years early as told to the geramn navy changed everything.The Battle of Britain was very necessary for the British to do much of anything offensively and that would have been very hard had germany gained air supremacy. The Balkins may have change and with it the war.Its clear that most military historians thought even with the fabled air defense system Britain came very close to be the next France to sue for peace.

[noetsi]

How would the Balkans have changed? The Germans seized control of them anyway. As for the British operations in North Africa that was largely tied to ground forces not the air until 42. What transformed the situtation was not the battle of britain (if you assume the Germans were not going to invade anyhow) but the Russian invasion.

Its interesting listening to assessments that the British could have been terrorized by bombing into surrendering. The allies hit German cities repeatedly with thousand plane four engine bombers (which the Germans had nothing remotely like) and the German resolve hardened.