Did the Navy win the Battle of Britain?

Of course,the RAF won the BoB,the RN was not participating,but,OTOH,if the RAF had lost the BoB,the presence of the RN would prevent Sealion(or would make it a desaster),but,OTOH,even without the RN,Sealion would be a desaster:there also was the army,you know?
But ,OTOH,even without a big army,Sealion would be a desaster,the Germans having no transport fleet.
But,OTOH,even with a transport fleet,Sealion would be a desaster,the weather in september over the channel beying impredictable(as a women),the Germans would need weeks of good weather for the buil up.
I think that every body is happy now .

 

I was on a course at Shrivenham around this time; Christina Goulter was one of the lecturers. She didn't have much positive to say about the article!

Roxy

 

I would like to know what the three author have to say about whom defeated Germany. Allies or Russia?

 

No doubt the Navy would have shot down all the 88s & 87s without any air cover.


Well, there's a couple of ways of looking at that...

1/ as Brian Lavery notes, the RN had proved good at simply manouvering to avoid "fall of shot" off Narway, and despite spending eight weeks in VERY close proximity to the Luftwaffe with a LOT of shipping, naval losses to air attack were quite small in relative terms!

2/ Given what ELSE would have been happening up to that point...there would be X-number of Ju88s burning over the UK as part of the initial air superiority battle, and then X-number of Ju88s and Stukas passing overhead to land targets in support of the Werhmacht!

They may have been wonderwaffen, but there was just so much they could do at once

 

Oaktree
I would like to know what the three author have to say about whom defeated Germany. Allies or Russia?


All made a contribution each in their own way although it has to be said the war in the east increasing drew in more of Germany's resources, but let's not go off track.

In terms of denying the Germans a window of opportunity when they eventually got their act together and focused their attentions on attacking Britain it has to be said that the RAF denied them this.
The Royal Navy completely out numbered the Kriegsmarine who recognised that they could not on their own defend an invasion force within the limitations of the resources which they had to hand, their ability to both sustain losses and maintain adequate protection / cover for a prolonged period of time was really beyond them.

phylo_roadking makes a number of good points ;
1. The Kgm would have been in need of protection and the attacking force if it made it to the coast would have been need of support.
2. The Kgm lacked the ability to do both and the Luftwaffe would have been stretched to make this up and an invading force would have hard pushed to see its needs met by both Kgm and Luftwaffe. (Both at sea and over its beachheads).

Examples of German seaborne invasions - Norway and Crete both at times confused affairs which saw the best of plans not surviving contact with the enemy , perhaps the Germans were unlucky in Norway but that is the chance they took and it was the nature of the coastline they operated against.
Crete involved losses for both sides , the RN did find it difficult against the Luftwaffe. (Cunningham did sustain heavy losses).

Did the RN win the Battle of Britain, I think they did deny the Germans what they sought and this played a part in killing "Sealion" , the RN likewise played its part in degrading German naval resources (which were never plentiful) to the extent that they were inadequate for "Sealion".
( From memory the Germans would have been depending on the threat of air power, mines and submarines to hold the RN away from their invasion forces).
That holistic approach to the Battle and the decision to invade is my view ( for what it is worth) , the Germans would have had to prepare ( such as they could) but any attempt would have had to have been based on opportunity, an opportunity brought about by circumstances- that widow of opportunity which they could not create and as that slipped from them their willingness to try went with it.

Did the RN win the battle - they played their part in the bigger picture just as the RAF did, as did a lack of ability of the Germans to put together an invasion force in a few months - very heath Robinson compared to D-Day.
And Hitler's own take on things also play a part - his desire to invade Russia for his own racial and "political" interests - he saw time as being on his side and perhaps who can blame him for this and did this also play a part in his views on "Sealion" ?
His views on Sealion were ( for once sound) and "not coming" made sense, but Hitler was a gambler - "all on the turn of one card" and I do think that if he had been fully committed he would have "taken the chance".

 

Just my own personal input and no offrence intended, but why when ever anyone talks about certain aspects of the war and who did what. Why does no one ever mention the role played by the Merchant Navy.

During the Battle of Britain, the British Merchant Navy lost 384 Merchant ships, with the loss of 2,992 seamen, many of them tankermen, whom without, these planes would not have got off the ground.

Lest we forget

 

Billy McGee.
During the Battle of Britain, the British Merchant Navy lost 384 Merchant ships, with the loss of 2,992 seamen, many of them tankermen, whom without, these planes would not have got off the ground.


A very good point, my late father (Ex RN) told me that "if you ever saw a tanker "going up" , it was something that you could never forget".
1940-41 were not good years for our shipping and everything which came over came at a cost.

 

Billy,
It will be no surprise that I agree with you 100%. It was one of the reasons that I joined this forum to help bring more awareness of the role played by the Merchant Navy in all aspects of the various battles that the fighting services took part.

Despite terrible casualties these men in civilian clothing with a wee lapel badge, to show they were not dodging the draft, hardly get any press.

Regards
Hugh

 

Hitler wouldn't invade until the Luftwaffe had air superiority, the RAF stopped the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority - therefore the RAF won the Battle of Britain. No?

 

Gage
Hitler wouldn't invade until the Luftwaffe had air superiority, the RAF stopped the Luftwaffe gaining air superiority - therefore the RAF won the Battle of Britain. No?

It has to be a major plank in the proceedings, a weak German navy and an air force which was ill equipped to defeat a modern well organised air defence system, let's thank God that Goring was no Dowding.

 

Simple really. Old poster showing who all the three armed services relied on as well as the public at home, but some how everyone forgot when it was all over.

 

The anwser is yes and no. 1. the navy saved the boys at Dunkirk. 2. The navy played a large part in deturing the Nazis from landing. 3. The navy helped get convoys through. But the navy dident shoot down too many Axis aircraft.

 

The anwser is yes and no. 1. the navy saved the boys at Dunkirk.

Once again the Merchant Navy is being overlooked. 53 Merchant ships, took a direct part and completed evacuations in Operation Dynamo. There is also an unknown number of barges, lighters and hoppers and harbour tugs which took part as well as 64 lifeboats taken from Merchant ships unable to make the trip to Dunkirk. They made 103 trips, rescuing 91,059 men.

Dunkirk was not the end of the evacuations either. Operation Cycle, the evacuation of nearly 25,000 troops along the coast between Dieppe & Le Harve. Once again the Merchant navy was brought to the fore front. Starting on the 9/10 June and for the next three days the Merchant Navy rescued nearly 15,000 men in comparrison to the 1,060 rescued by the navy.

This was followed by Operation Ariel (1) Cherbourg, St. Malmo & the Channel Islands. 53 merchant ships evacuated nearly 88,000. Operation Ariel (2) Brest to St. Jean-de-Luz. 79 Merchant ships rescued 200,000 compared to the 4,561 rescued by the navy.

I could go on, but have made my point and this is in no way to detract away any of the operations undertaken by the armed services, it is just that you would think the Merchant Navy was never there.

 

Surely, Op Dynamo was part of the Battle of France; or am I missing something?

Roxy

 

Surely, Op Dynamo was part of the Battle of France; or am I missing something?

Roxy

If you read down from post #27, it all fits into place.

 

The air battle Battle of Britain, was important but greatly over exaggerated in its importance to the defense of the UK. It was not the battle for the Britain at all as Britain was not being invaded. There was propaganda created in WW2 which was never put right after the war. Then Hollywood after the war took hold and the propaganda became real.

During WW2 Churchill used the Battle of Britain as a tool to unite the nation. "backs to the wall", "triumph over adversity", etc. After WW2 it was used a means of reinforcing the British class system. Most believed a handful of Oxbridge post and under graduates, saved our lives in Spitfires at the last moment, so we must be grateful to and for the upper classes, and the system must be maintained. The reality was the enlisted Sergeant-pilots, in the inferior Hurricane, had a higher hit rate. The squadron with the highest hits was the Polish squadron and the pilot with the highest hits was a Czech.

Germany could have only have gained "fighter" air superiority over the South East of England - RAF planes could be stationed out of the their reach and sortie in for specific tasks during any attempted.

Exploding armoured piecing shell were not available to Stukas at the time, so penetrating armoured decks was near impossible - British carriers had armoured decks, although using them in the channel would have been risky, although out in the North Sea with planes overflying an invasion attempt was not. Germany had had an effective torpedo plane.

Even with air superiority over the South East, the Germans did not have enough fighters to fight off any British fighters and bombers (large bomber force) that may show up over any invasion beaches (Britain would not stop making planes and training pilots) and protect any planes attacking the RN.

Britain also had a huge bomber force, which would be used against any invasion beaches and they were bombing the barges at their mooring anyway.

There were few decent invasion beaches on the south east coast, as the Spanish knew in 1588, so any invasion would be concentrated a few beaches, which would be primarily around the Thames estuary, which is easier for the defenders.

Then look at the concrete barges the Germans were to use. They had to blow off the fronts to get heavy vehicles out - this would mean the concrete lump would litter the beach preventing any follow up barges from coming ashore. The wake of a full speed frigate would turn the barges over, so a few of these mixing in the force would cause panic. Also the sailing from Holland and Belgium would be approx 24 hours being towed by tugs.

Then their would be beach obstacles for the barges to get around. The Germans had no method of removing these - look at Omaha beach on Day D when the US employed no beach clearing machines as the Brits had and with total air superiority. A battleship with 15" guns even helped the US invaders too, going in very close to attempt to blast German positions. Many large battleships were used at Normandy to blast the beaches before troops arrived. The Germans only had one ship of this type. During Normandy the Allies had total control of the Channel waters, so could use large ships close in. During Sept 1940 the Germans did not have control of the Channel or the southern North Sea water, the RN was far too big for them. German U boats at this time were few as the large U boats fleet was built after 1940.

The important resupply of the landed German forces. This could not be guaranteed. Unless the RN, RAF and army forces in the south east were fully neutralised.

Then look at the UK land forces. In 1939 the UK had a higher industrial output than Germany, although not military output, but that changed drastically. Much of the army was not deployed in France with the BEF and much of the forces returned home. There was a lot around Normandy and Brittany during the Dunkirk evacuation. They all came home with their equipment, even the newly deployed Canadians. Little of the new designed equipment was used in France. In the three months from Dunkirk to the supposed invasion of Sept 1940 British industry worked 24/7 and all lost equipment at Dunkirk was replaced with mainly newer designs. Manning levels were also back up with mass training of recruits.

Now look at the German army. Top class front line tanks used as a battering ram, which took all by surprise, with backup supply by horses, with the following infantry marching with the horses. This slow manpower and horse intensive setup was to conquer the south east of the England? Not likely even if by the remote possibility they gained an initial beach head.

Now look at the strength of the RN (largest navy in the world) against the virtually non-existent German navy who only a few months earlier suffered large losses at Norway. Most of their surface navy was wiped out at Narvik.

During the Battle of Britain the UK sent 55 tanks to the Middle East. This is not in-keeping of a country that was about to fall.

The Germans at no time during WW2 had the capability to successfully invade the UK - air superiority or not. Sealion was a ruse to push the UK into a peace pact, as the Germans on a number occasions approached for peace - fighting the UK was not in the master plan.

 

Odd this! I just cannot imagine warships flying over Germany on bombing raids, or Dreadnoughts defending our shores from marauding flights of bombers and enemy fighters.

What a daft argument...... Why? simple really I witnessed toe battle of Britain over Southern England.With the vapour trails high in the clear blue skies where our young men died for all that they held dear


We had a wonderful navy, but no they did not save this land the RAF did. Now if you claimed they made enormouse efforts to win the war.... Bloody Hell! YES they did. As did millions of others in this land.

Good Lord ! Did you see that? HMS Hood taking off on a bombimng mission,,,"Good luck Lads"
Sapper

 

Gage

It has to be a major plank in the proceedings, a weak German navy and an air force which was ill equipped to defeat a modern well organised air defence system, let's thank God that Goring was no Dowding.
Problem is it wouldn't be much air defence system after the Germans had landed as all the main radar stations were in areas that would be swamped by the first landing forces. If one considers an air battle in connection with a Sealion several parameters would be very different. As a matter of fact Hitler did not even specify air superiority as a must. The exact wording in his order was local and timely air superiority. Luckily, the Germans were not able to understand the difference between that and what was going on during the Blitz. What the air fighting would center around was the Fighter Command's ability to keep the German bombers away from any RN intrusions into the Channel. This would not take place over London but over the Channel. During the Kanalkampf, the first part of the BoB, the Royal Navy was chased away from the Channel in daytime.

 

Then look at the concrete barges the Germans were to use. They had to blow off the fronts to get heavy vehicles out - this would mean the concrete lump would litter the beach preventing any follow up barges from coming ashore. The wake of a full speed frigate would turn the barges over, so a few of these mixing in the force would cause panic. Also the sailing from Holland and Belgium would be approx 24 hours being towed by tugs.

From where have you sucked all this nonsense....?