Did the Navy win the Battle of Britain?

Fred, you mentioned that the Germans had achieved air superiority in early August 1940.
Some problems with this .



The first and greatest being...

How can the British stopping sending shipping through the Narrows be interpreted as an indicator of AIR superiority???

It's worth noting that on no occasion did the RAF refuse to or prove unable to react to raids over the Channel during the Kanalkampf. Now THAT would have been an indicator of the Luftwaffe having gained superiority...

A lot of people - Fred included - when looking at Directive no. 17 see it as a further directive on the prosecution of Sealion - but it's NOT.

Directive no. 17 is the Fuhrerdirectiv changing the Luftwaffe away from its then-current and relatively unplanned strategic bombing campaign....and redirecting it towards a more direct prosecution of the air supremacy battle - BECAUSE it was taking losses too! Losses that were judged to be beginning to impinge in its future role in winning air superiority and subsequently providing close air support for the Landing forces.

You need to look closely at Directive no.17...and see what it STOPS happening...

2. After achieving temporary or local air superiority the air war is to be continued against ports, in particular against stores of food, and also against stores of provisions in the interior of the country. Attacks on south coast ports will be made on the smallest possible scale, inview of our own forthcoming operations.


I.E "You've been bombing ports and shipping up to now - stop that, carry out Part ONE of the order..."

1/ The German Air Force is to overpower the English Air Force with all the forces at its command, in the shortest possible time. The attacks are to be directed primarily against flying units, their ground organisations, and their supply organizations, but also against the aircraft industry, including that manufacturing anti-aircraft equipment.


..."and THEN GO BACK to bombing shipping, and ports, and food stocks."

The Directive goes on to hammer home this point -

3. On the other hand, air attacks on enemy shipping and merchat ships may be reduced except where some particularly favourable targets happens to present itself....


It then stipulates that the new campaign would begin on or around the 5th...but weather wasnt favourable, planning for it wasn't complete nor orders cut for it by the 8th...when part 3. of the Directive was actioned to allowed Hugo Sperrle to plaster the Peewhit convoy off St. Catherine's Point, as is currently being discussed elsewhere.

 

Fred, walking away with the ball under your arm does not really make much sense , a number of members have asked reasonable questions and the quoted decent reference material which does does cast some doubt on your findings.
EG Did you consult the naval Conference notes / Jak Showell's book when researching ?

 

I say, Mods...Isn't it about time that this thread was merged ?

With this one.

It is in danger of imitating the ouzelum bird.

 

I see. Please strike my membership.



As I posted on AHF...

It's very simple - if you come onto a forum to market your book, and post in threads discussing your book or in related subjects - you've got to be prepared to answer questions put to you about what you've posted AT LEAST. Or else...why post at all? Whether intentionally or not - you're there to sell - so why do everything you can to give people a bad opinion of your work???

When it comes to parting people from their hard-earned, especially nowadays....any publicity is NOT good publicity.


How does Fred expect his potential buying public to react to his refusal to answer questions....or now to even debate at all...and his taking up his ball and going home?

 

We don't "strike membership" anyhow.

 

Whats 'Strike Membership'?

Does he refuse to post until we give him a pay rise and allow him to spend less time on here?

It reminds me of the dustmen in Leeds

 

This has largely been a waste of time and whilst I respect Fred's right to form and hold his own opinions I for one will not be rushing out to order a copy of Fred's book.

 

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.

Just reading back, this gem went unchallenged at the time...

Fred seems to be unaware that AFTER any airborne intruders crossed the coast - all management of the historical air battle was done courtesy of the real-time "image" collated from ROC verbal returns! "All" that destruction of the radar net would do is rob Fighter Command of advance warning of incoming raids beyond optical spotting range....

But of course - by THAT stage of the battle, Fighter Command would be flying constant standing patrols and flying escort for bombers anyway; there would be a far smaller role for ground-controlled interception than in the "initial" stage of the BoB, the historical part we all know about that ideally (for the Germans) would have forced the withdrawal of Eleven Group beyond the Thames.

In other words - once the invasion began, what GCI was required for Fighter Command would be against Luftwaffe bombers over Kent anyway, flying close air support and preventing the approach of British Army reserves, and thus would have been manageable from ROC data input.

 

Is your book on Sealion self-published?

I believe that to be the case.

All the best

Andreas

 

Quoted by phylo_roadking

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.


This really is meaningless - a book of what if is little more than a moderately interesting fairy tale eg a departure or distraction from reality , it informs you about something which never happened or at best "could have happened" and might never have been even if it might have happen, which it didn't .....does this make sense .

I recall years ago reading an alternative WW2 which saw Hitler injured in plane crash in mid 1941 which left the Army to run the attack on Russia - Moscow fell but the war went on - the oilfields fell and Rommel linked up with them and a drive on India started.
The Japanese carrier fleet was destroyed not at Midway but off the Panama canal.
Entertaining and speculative but nothing more and the book set out to do no more than this, not sure about Fred's ................ Last comment on this project , I get the feeling that it has been a huge waste of time arguing the toss.

 

a book of what if is little more than a moderately interesting fairy tale eg a departure or distraction from reality , it informs you about something which never happened or at best "could have happened" and might never have been even if it might have happen, which it didn't .....does this make sense .


It does - but Sealion is a peculiar case; BOTH sides in a world war mobilised HUGE resources to prepare for it, and plan what to do in the event it actually occured. It cast a huge shadow on the UK war effort for many months...and signs of it can still be seen all over the British landscape. The first stages of it - what WE know as the Battle Of Britain - actually occured....so we can actually see and touch a huge percentage more of it than most What-Ifs.

Last comment on this project , I get the feeling that it has been a huge waste of time arguing the toss.


James, not really Few people buy books blind these days, they do a modicum of research, and if a thread such as this shows up on their Google search...so much the better!

EDIT: last night I came across a short but..."spirited"...review of Fred's book on the Internet. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the forum rules would allow it's reproduction here!

 

Whats 'Strike Membership'?

Does he refuse to post until we give him a pay rise and allow him to spend less time on here?

It reminds me of the dustmen in Leeds


A membership in British Leyland?

 

Your other remark I find, well, a little insulting. I am very critical to moderators that mix into the threads ...


Tail Wags Dog Mk.II




As an aside...
Za, you didn't encounter an early incarnation of the troll formerly known as "Black Hornet"/"Chromeboomerang", did you???

A small world, Phylo, give him my regards :p

 

Regards? More like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick! Along with Robdab/Dabrob, Black Hornet/Chromeboomerang is one of the more intransigent of WI trolls; but that has it's benefits too - you get to slap him round the head with the wet kipper of inconvenient fact time after time after time!

 

He's chosen his name well.

Don't tell me you still have to put up with him! What kind of a Mod are you over there

 

Pm

 

Replied to. Of course the above was a rhetorical/facetious question, it would be most stupid of me to question the abilities or performance of other people

 

Right guys, time to get back on track or move on - nothing to see here.

 

Right guys, time to get back on track or move on - nothing to see here.
‪Nothing to see here‬‏ - YouTube

 

Watcha mean nothing to see here? I still want to learn how one can move several motorised infantry divisions plus 4 PzDivisions on requisitioned bateaux-mouches!