Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.
Great video as always. It strikes me how few historians pay any attention to the fundamental doctrinal differences between the two air forces, and indeed the two countries. Germany had established its doctrine around short campaigns and recovery. Both the army and air force were set up for this in every aspect. Production was focused on complete vehicles and equipment and almost none on spare parts. For the Luftwaffe only around 10% of the bf109 production was dedicated to spare parts. So if an aircraft was damaged and there was no immediate wreck on the airfield for scavenging, it was another write off. The units were meant to enter a campaign, fight and take the losses and once it was over, new aircraft and men would join. But rarely during the campaign itself. We also see it with the training. For Luftwaffe, pilots were trained to a decent standard and then sent to the units where operational training was just that. Getting up to standard while flying with the unit you would fight your next campaign with. It was this latter part where you would learn the latest tactics and so on. It is one of the reasons why none of the German aces or veterans were rotated back to train new pilots - they were expected to train them when they arrived during the recovery for next campaign. This proved crucial, first with the Battle of Britain and later in Russia, where there never really was any period of peace to recover and retrain with new pilots. It worked well with the short campaigns in Poland, Denmark/Norway, France and Balkans, but came out short when sustained action forced the units to keep fighting. This explains the fewer and fewer pilots as the battle went on - few new pilots would be sent to the units during a campaign, it was against doctrine, and those who did arrive were not properly trained just like many of their British counterparts. Both industrially, doctrinally and for training purposes, the German forces were set up for short "sprints" and recovery and one of the reasons the Luftwaffe took such a blow was because the air battles over Britain went on for far longer than expected and for what Luftwaffe could sustain. Britain, on the other hand, had set up production and training to be in it for the long run. Aircraft production devoted a significant amount of output to spare parts so the existing aircraft could be kept operational. So a damaged plane would rarely be a write off, like with the Germans. The ground crews were trained in repairs and brought up to a high efficiency so they could keep the units at full strength. Apart from the frantic struggle to get pilots for Fighter Command in the summer of 1940 (the famous grabbing from every other service), RAF had set up training of pilots and ground crew so there would be a steady flow of well trained pilots reaching front line units at all times. There was basic training but unlike the Germans, they had OTU's, Operational Training Units, in which the new pilots were taught the latest tactics and doctrines by veterans who were rotated out of combat to get rest and teach the very latest to the new ones. So unlike Luftwaffe, when RAF pilots reached their unit, they were experienced and up to date and needed no further training. This fundamental difference in philosophy is one often overlooked yet makes a lot of things so easy to understand. Like how German fighter pilots late war were apparently so "easy" for USAAF escort fighters to shoot down - they were simply not fully trained before being sent up against the bomber fleets. The German Aces flew until they died, were captured or wounded. Most of the German pilots lost to USAAF escort fighters were not veterans, but fresh pilots. Many of the veterans survived the war because they knew how to survive, but they never got the chance to properly teach it to the replacements who were supposed to "learn on the job". Also, the USAAF training program set up before Pearl harbor was based on the British approach and it ensured only experienced and confident pilots would ever reach a frontline and it proved vastly successful. Sorry for the long wall of text, it was hard to explain with few words. But fascinating aspect none the less.
Thank you! You clarified some things the post didn't. What I saw was that the whole Battle of Britain was a very close thing and ended as a war of attrition, which it was, but not on equal terms. What was true of Germany was also true of Japan, with the best Pilots slowly being depleted and, at the end, poorly trained Pilots being massacred by well trained Allied Pilots, who probably could have given the early war Aces a run for their money.
feels like you should make a youtube video on it. Would be interesting maybe find some documents to back up your claims, maybe video of veterians that said such things or manuals. would be a good 20-30 min video.
Thank you very much for your comment. I have read a number of books about the Battle of Britain, including some dealing with some of the "myths" about the Battle, but had not come across this perspective explained so clearly before. I knew that the Luftwaffe was intended to provide assistance to the Wehrmacht, and not act so much as a "stand alone" force. Therefore the heavy emphasis on short range aircraft but low emphasis on large, four engined bombers. I would take issue with you about your comment the the "- - Luftwaffe pilots were trained to a decent standard - - " My understanding is that the Luftwaffe training was of a very high standard. Not just a "decent" standard. However, EXCELLENT comment. THANK YOU.
Yeah I agree with that... it sits alongside some other things that were rooted in German policy that I lump under one topic... "leadership"... in short, the British leadership and all of its policies were light years ahead of anything the Germans produced, right from the national leadership right down to the heads of airforce. How can you even compare Herman Goerings leadership to that superb helmsmanship of sir Hugh Dowding?
The British Command and Control SYSTEM was crucial in the battle. Secondly the Luffewaffe was designed as a close support air arm NOT as an independent offensive entity.
@DC.409 it also had redundancy allow electricity to be re-routed with greater ease, allow the radar stations no to be crippled by the loss of a single failure.
also having an influx of professional polish czech and other pilots certainly helped reduced the lack of qualified pilots available to the raf. it also gave the raf a serious rump of battle hardened veterans. annother important component was the Royal Observer Corps who played a very important role in identifying enemy aircraft once they were overland.
agreed the command and control system of chain home. observer corp, reporting to a central hub allowed the RAF "NOT" to have standing patrols thus reducing wear and tear on men and machinery (what was the service interval for a merlin engine) also having the crews only to wait untill needed helped in fatigue factor
Regarding numbers of pilots and aircraft available for the Luftwaffe for the BoB: even though the Battle of France was a disaster for the British, it was a costly victory for the Nazis. They lost 28% of their aircraft during the campaign, with a further 5% damaged and in need of repair. This no doubt helped even the odds for the RAF in July 1940.
Very good. Synopsis of the battle , which not only shows the growing strength of The fighters but also the large effort of bomber command. If a bit of the underdog at the beginning. A game of two halves. We got stronger .
One point of interest where squadron sizes were concerned is the fact that RAF squadrons had 20 aircraft at full strength whereas the Luftwaffe squadrons were 12 aircraft per squadron. As each assumed that the other had squadrons of similar size to their own this meant that the British over estimated how many aircraft the Germans had and the Germans underestimated how many the British had. Something often missed is that the basis for the RAF's air defence for the Battle of Britain had its origins in WW1 with at first the Zeppelin raids and later the Gotha bombers. This introduced the necessary parts, such as fighter interception, AAA guns and observers and all the planning involved, which were used in the Battle of Britain. So without the much hated Zeppelins and Gothas the Battle of Britain would have been very different.
Those are interesting points, and ones I’ve seen elsewhere. But I find it hard to believe that the British and the Germans didn’t know the standard size of each other’s squadrons. They knew a lot of details about each other and had broken each other’s codes. Is it possible they would make such fundamental errors in information and analysis? Maybe there was some fog of war and it colored their thinking, but to be so wildly off seems unlikely. That’s my thought on this anyway. I could be wrong.
@@adamesd3699 German intelligence gathering was crap, and information sharing was even worse. The luftwaffe scientific staff new about the radar waves generated by Chain Home, but didn't tell anyone. It took a few weeks of being intercepted before the pilots started to think they were being watched too well. Ultimately, squadron sizes didn't matter under the Dowding system, and the manner in which Sir Keith Park fought. The idea wasn't to overwhelm the incoming raids, but to engage them for the bulk of the time they were inbound...when there was no more inbound threat, then the fighters could engage on the outbound route. It was an angle grinder approach, just keep at them and eventually they will crack, which happened.
@@adamesd3699 German intel gathering was pretty poor. It looks like with the exception of man all the spies they sent to Britain were captured and most were turned and used against the Germans by the British. The one who was not caught committed suicide, possibly because the Germans were so into what the other spies were telling them that he became sidelined.
A great short video and one that even gives the Bomber Command and the Fleet Air Arm losses as this is very sorely missed by most people it's generally all about the fighters...
Strongly agree with comments about other arms i.e. Bomber Command. The few references I have ever seen say they were extremely active flying missions against airfields and ports where barges were gathering. I wish someone with the time and skills would work to fill in this gap. Perhaps another video Caliban?
Well Ricky, it just so happens I'm working on a video about the very first Bomber Command mission of the war. Should be the next one out if all goes well!
Indeed. Later on more RAF aircrew were killed in one Bomber Command attack than By Fighter Command in the whole battle and many more in the attacks on Normandy invasion targets but you rarely hear about them in comparison.
The one crucial number was 'zero'...the exact number of bombs in the luftwaffe arsenal capable of penetrating royal navy decking of any ship larger than destroyer. Without those, all the brits had to do was make a wave a half metre high and it would have swamped the german river and canal barges they planned to invade with.
1.Destroy the RAF airfields/hangers in 11 group. 2, Destroy all radar stations 3. Get the RN into the Chanel, and sink as many as possible. 4. Get a division of infantry into Southern England and keep sinking ships. The loss of lots of destroyers this early in the war, could have been fatal..
@@philipambler3825 Good luck with 3 & 4. The Luftwaffe had recently failed badly at Dunkirk, hadn't been trained in anti-shipping techniques, didn't have an operational torpedo bomber until mid 1942, couldn't operate at night, and in the whole of WW2 sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. To get the RN to commit its anti-invasion resources ( 70 light cruisers and destroyers within 5 hours steaming of Dover, supported by around 500 smaller warships) the Germans would have to give the Admiralty a reason to send them. Which, of course, they never dared do. Oh, and to demonstrate how greatly RN destroyers resources had been degraded, by mines, U-boats, and of course the mighty Luftwaffe, just look at the actual figures. In September, 1939, the RN (including the Canadian & Australian navies) had 193 destroyers & leaders in commission. By late September, 1940, when Sealion might have been attempted, the RN had been reduced to a 'mere' 182. Of course, in September, 1939 the RN was spread around the world. In September 1940, it was concentrated in the Mediterranean & in Home Waters. Good luck even getting a division of infantry ashore, in view of the above. As the British by September 1940 had 34.5 operational divisions in the UK, 20 of which were in the Home Counties and East Anglia, and as your single infantry division had no means of re-supply, I wonder how many days it would have lasted? Or should that be 'how many hours?'
My father was in the raf in ww2, he said we were just bloody lucky, Germany started to bomb cities (it was an accident the German bombers got lost) dad said they couldn't have taken another week of attacks on the airfields. He was one of the ground crews keeping the spits and hurricanes in the air, and it was getting bloody difficult to do as the trained ground crews were getting harder to replace 🧐
He wasn't wrong. In an odd way we've got Hitler partly to thank for our victory in the Battle of Britain. His strategic interference was crucial. "In August, two German pilots had dropped their bombs on London, having flown off-course at night. In retaliation, the RAF bombed the Berlin suburbs, enraging Hitler. Hitler ordered a change in strategy, concentrating their raids on London and other cities. 1,000 Luftwaffe aircraft took part in a single attack the first day on 7 September."
Correct. I put this forward in Quora. Most British stubbornly refused to admit this. One more month of bombing the airfields and the battle would have been lost. Hitler and Goering were idiots.
It was Churchill who first ordered the indiscriminant bombing of Berlin citizens 25 Aug 1940, precisely to goad Hitler into diverting away from airfields and command centers and military/strategic targets. About the same time, Goering ordered his 109s and 110s to stay with the bombers, putting them into a defensive role, unable to position themselves to take the initiative. For that reason, the Hurricanes were not being slaughtered as easily in September.
Detailed and fact filled with all the info required to get a sense of what led to ultimate victory. I was disappointed not to see the South African flag amongst the countries of the participants of the Battle of Britain when they made a contribution not only in fighter pilots but at the leadership level with the likes of Quinton Brand who was OC 10 fighter group who worked well with Keith Park, as well as the contribution right from the start of Sailor Malan who became a Group Captain. They should not be forgotten.
In the end RAF pilots shot down in the Battle of Britain had a good chance of survival & damaged planes might be repaired. German pilots were either captured or hoped that they could get back across the channel. Damage or fuel shortage meant many of them did not. Britain looked at the channel & wished it was wider...Germans looked at it & wished it was narrower.
Very true. Also Britain was emphasising production of new planes and pilots. The pipeline of new people and gear was getting into overdrive. A good bit of forethought was useful.
However, the British underestimated the dangers of the Channel. RAF pilots could not rely on rescue services and even after bailing out and floating in their lifevest, hypothermia claimed many lives of pilots who were not rescued (in time), only 'a stone's throw away' from home.* German pilots had floatplanes and fast patrol boats looking out for them and if none were available, the Luftwaffe had anchored a few floating shelters in the Channel. * British television did a documentary about the fate of shot down RAF pilots who ended up in the Channel at the start of the Battle. Floating among the waves, a pilot could barely see over the waves and could not be spotted vice versa. I guess only pilots who were actually seen parachuting had any chance of being rescued.
Actually not true at the start the raf were less likely to survive tjen the germabs as the raf had to relly on random boats unlike german which had an independant coast that would go out and collect survivours from purpose built sea bunkers that floated in the channel. The brit saw these and build like 15 of their own and increased their survival chance
German leadership were living in a dreamland and didn't have a clue when it came to attacking the UK, which was fortunate for the Allies since it gave the RAF the opportunity to utterly decimate a massive chunk of Germany's best and most experienced pilots and crews. As has been mentioned before, many shot down British pilots floated down to safety to fight again. While the British losses were comparable in terms of downed planes, it's a deceptive figure. British air industry was immense by that point and were pumping out aircraft to simply replace any losses. Added to the vast swathe of pilots recovered safely and there was never going to be any other outcome. In 'real terms' the permanent loss of experienced German pilots and crews was overwhelmingly in Britain's favour. It was a total victory in that sense.
Add in Beppo Schmidt...the Luftwaffe Chief of Intelligence, who was rather incompetent. His underestimate4 of the RAF's remaining strength [by about 50%] contributed to the decision to change from bombing Sector Stations, to bombing London
There would have been far more Spitfires had good ol' Lord Nuffield not delayed the construction of Castle Bromwich and production of Spits. He also financed the BUF newpaper and backed Oswald Mosley .
Another excellent video. Over the years, I've slowly changed how I view the BOB. In size and scope, I actually find it now a small, but very important battle in WW2. I only say that in full comparison to the size and scale of fighting that came later on. And, if we tally up bomber command and coastal command losses, and we widen out the scope of the battle to what it should be - the losses and numbers are more equal. It becomes more of a tactical victory for Britain, and statistically more like a draw - but a siege that failed / was broken - is a win condition. The German juggernaut was unable to gain a win condition in the battle. Cheers!
Battle of Britain Note It was not until the Luftwaffe radio monitoring service and the German Post office set up their listening stations on the coast of France in July 1940 that the Luftwaffe realized it was up against something new and of vital importance. First the operators discovered that the ether on the 12 meter band was alive with signals radiating out across the channel from the tall and seemingly silent radar masts along the English coast. The second shock came as the Channel convoy battles developed. British voices could be heard on H.F. accurately directing formations of fighters towards unseen German raiders. The air was full of voices, calmly and systematically placing fighters here and there and guiding others back to base. It dawned on the listeners that this was part of a complex and smooth-running organization of great size. - Chapter 10 "The System" from "The Narrow Margin - The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power" Derek Wood and Derek Dempster (c) 1961
They failed to detect British Chain Home Radar even with an offshore voyage of the Graf Zeppelin before the war. Chain Home was a simple technology put into place in time to be useful, the Germans missed it because they were expecting something much more sophisticated, Chain Home didn’t even sweep across the sky.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 All of that, including a day by day account of the battle is written in: "The Narrow Margin - The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power" Derek Wood and Derek Dempster (c) 1961 Well worth the read. Needles to say, because of the painstaking detail there are incidents mentioned at the father's aerodrome - Croydon.
Makes you realise it was never even close and even if the Luftwaffe had won some sort of air superiority for any period the Royal Navy would still have obliterated any invasion attempt. When many of the surviving participants wargamed an invasion in the 1970s I think, the scenario it was clear from early on the Kriegsmarine couldn’t supply any landed forces due to British superior naval strength. Even with total air and sea superiority several years planning, brilliant intelligence duplicity and incredible US military power the reverse in June 1944 was still very challenging. So the fag packet 1940 Sealion never had a prayer. Thank god for the English Channel and hence any wise UK government should always maintain a powerful Royal Navy.
Thank you for sharing your most informative and excellent presented research on Britain's defences during WW2, in which my father volunteered and his Lancaster never returned to East Kirkby and my stepfather's system of air defence.
The RAF fighters shown at 2:30 are in post-Battle of Britain colors. The sky-colored spinners and fuselage bands, and the night-colored portside underwing on the Hurricane are the giveaways.
Actually the black wing / white wing was pre Battle of Britain and it's possible some were not repainted . The battle lasted nearly 6 months and there could be a variety of finishes . Not long after the schemes were changed to grey / green but I don't think you can be too pedantic about actual dates ; as I doubt if they would repaint all the surviving aircraft .
The Hurricane is only just outside the BoB dates and it has the earlier white/black underside, the image’s being taken from a 1/24 model decal set for a Mk1A of 306 Sqn in November 1940.
@@Dalesmanable like I said some earlier aircraft survived the Bof B . They did not repaint every aircraft . they had enough problems servicing the aircraft let alone repainting serviceable aircraft > black and white undersides was for recognition for AA gunners . Even before the war . You can find lots of different spinner colours as well . Dates wise you can safely say ; there were no Mkv Spitfires let alone Mkix s as in the 1969 film . I am sure you will find some variety in finishes though . Never the less the Battle of Britain film of 1969 remains unsurpassed for aerial photography so we can forgive the Buchon Me 109s
One of the biggest problems faced by the British was their lack of experienced pilots. Many were cannon fodder for the Germans who, by this time, had accumulated considerable operational experience. You can over-analyze the Battle of Britain but the simple fact is it was a battle neither side could afford to lose. The Americans, when formerly asked by Britain for help, replied by suggesting the Brits send their entire fleet to America as Britain was certain to be defeated. This abject abandonment is conveniently overlooked by many today.
I know that there wasn’t any help available from the US at this stage of the war. But hell - the suggestion that the government send the fleet to the USA is new to me. That’s astounding, and damning! Mind you, their ambassador at the time, Joe Kennedy, was a nasty little sh!t.
Remember Churchill's speech about the Royal Navy continuing the fight if Britain fell? That was where that came from. Joe Kennedy was a true POS no argument. and as typical of all too many you try and blame others for your own mistakes. AT the time it all started, NO ONE really thought England could hold. NO ONE. at that time Germany and the Luftwaffe looked unbeatable. AND by the way you also ignore all those sympathetic to Hitler in England amongst the upper class AND the peace faction that was a lot stronger than YOU will ever admit As regards no help, the US sent what they could which was not much that really could help in the air battle. Also once again showing the typical stupidity of those like you, the US was at that time Neutral in name but FDR was doing all he could which really was not all that much for several reasons. 1) we did not have that much to send. As regards aircraft, not many of ours were up to modern standards. 2) we were JUST BEGINNING to prepare for war due to the isolationist attitude of most Americans- which is quite easy to understand after all the British propaganda from the last war. We had fought and bled and here the Europeans were going at it again 20 years later. Why get involved? 3) many thought that England deserved to get its butt kicked due to the treaty of Versailles which was the biggest single factor in Hitlers rise to power. You broke it, you fix it was the attitude of many 4) The idiotic neutrality acts that the pacifists and isolationists had pushed through Congress hamstrung FDR in many ways. I could go on but I doubt you are honest enough to admit how stupid you sounded.
The reason the USA came into the war because it realised if Britain went down the pan it would leave Herr Hitler an entirely free hand in mainland Europe. The war that everyone knew would happen between Germany and Russia would have ended up with either Hitler or Stalin in control of the entirety of continental Europe. That dwarves the economic output of the USA.... controlled by either Uncle Joe or Hitler. That was the reason the US came into the war. For sure Britain would never have been able to win the war on its own but if it had gone down the pan .... Who would have stopped that much power ? How would the USA even been able to get their forces into the conflict in Europe with the then most powerful navy in the world (the RN) out of the game, or in worst case reinforcing the Axis fleets patrolling the worlds seas. Never in the field of human conflict might be a politicians guff but in this case it was probably true.
The British did have a large number of experienced pilots. A lot of those who fought in the Battle of Britain had seen combat over France and western Europe in the 1939-40 campaigns. That being said the Luftwaffe did have more pilots of experience in general than the RAF when the battle started in July 1940.
I think you will find that RAF Fighter Command did have a lot of experienced pilots at the beginning of the Battle: Peter Townsend; Robert Stamford-Tuck; Christopher Foxley-Norris; James Lacey and many others who were all pre-war trained. It is true that by September trining on a Fighter OTU had been cut to two weeks. However, what is overlooked is that Dowding was able to rotate squadrons throughout the Battle. For example 41 Sqn spent most of August at Catterick before returning to 11 Group in late August; likewise in mid-August 92 Sqn was in Wales but back in 11 Group by September, to give just two examples. Something the Luftwaffe never did. As for the British fleet, the Americans were concerned about it falling into German hands but never demanded it be sent to the USA. In fact in the summer of 1940 FDR sent Colonel Bill Donovan over to the UK in order to assess Britain's chances of survival. Donovan assessed Britain's chances as sound, being in agreement with the then US military attache of the time. Their assessment was at odds with that of the US Ambassador, Joseph Kennedy, who was completely defeatist but no longer trusted by anyone, including the professional diplomats in his own embassy and FDR and Sumner Welles back in Washington. The concern was real, likewise the British were concerned over the French fleet, hence the attack at Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July. One final point was that the Luftwaffe had suffered enormously during the Battle of France, having sustained losses in both aircraft and aircrew which had not been made good.
Thank you for your effort which explains much in a short time with many important facts and observations. I only wish others did it with their much larger budgets and time frames to work with, including their time spent on graphics, animations and distractions from the core knowledge we are really interested in.
I'm glad you mentioned it as it is often missed in modern scholarship but was known at the time was the role of Bomber Command in the Battle of Britain as the RAF was launching counter raids on the German Airbases and logistics hubs as well as the invasion barges in Northern France, The Low Countries, and Germany. This is nowadays a massively overlooked part of the battle and when Churchill was referring to the few in the Battle of Britain if you look at the entire speech he was also talking about the Bombers, not just Fighter command as in the previous sentence he stated: "we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power" The whole speech lasted 50 mins but we only ever talk about a less than 2 min section. This video will hopefully help to get rid of the false narrative about the battle that only started in the late war due to the backlash against bomber command after Dresden etc and the political decision by Churchill to distance himself from bomber command. In this video, I'm glad you make reference to this but I wish more of the video was dedicated to this especially going into what the RAF was bombing, etc as it feels like a bit of an afterthought, when you do include the RAF counter-bombing raids on France, etc the forces and the losses on both sides are roughly equal and this is also interesting as Goring stated that the Battle of Britain was a tactical draw that only became a victory when Hitler decided to move forces away for preparation for a war with the USSR which Goring actually opposed.
I have never heard that there was so much more in that speech until your comment, just the "Never in the field....etc". I am glad that Churchill did actually recognise the contribution of Bomber Command, but in subsequent years, in the public eye, they were almost ignored, apart from a few special ops like the dam raid, and even unfairly criticised for raids like Dresden. War is horrible, but the bravery of all those who put their lives on the line to save us should not be ignored. Thank you for enlightening me.
Hey there aviation enthusiasts! If you're an avid model builder, used to build them as a kid but want to get back into it, or have never built a model before, I highly recommend checking out Airfix for your next model plane: calibanrising.com/airfix/ With a wide range of models available, including the Spitfire and Hurricane as well as the BF 109 and 110, there's something for every level of model builder. And if you're just starting out, Airfix offers a range of starter sets to help you get the hang of things. So, whether you're a seasoned pro or a beginner, head on over to Airfix and take your love for aviation to new heights with their fantastic range of models. Please my link to start browsing models right now:calibanrising.com/airfix/
You are quite correct to bring this up, without the Worlds first Radar based integrated air defence system British losses would have been significantly greater and German losses would have been significantly fewer, in fact the RAF would have had to put up standing patrols all along the south east coast of England and only spot the German bombers by pure luck, and there is no way it would have been possible due to the enormous drain on aircraft and pilots, this is exactly what the Germans thought would happen and they did not realise how important the RAF Radar defence system was, the Germans told their bomber crews the RAF was down to its last few fighters but on their next bombing mission they would be intercepted by 50 RAF fighters, the RAF fighters were scrambled when and only when they were needed and then expertly guided to where the German bomber formations were, without that Radar defence system the Germans would almost certainly have won enough air superiority to invade Britain. Edit; although even if the Germans made a successful landing Churchill was going to deploy Anthrax making Britain uninhabitable for 50 years, there was no way the Germans were going to take Britain.
@@hitime2405 so true. Coastline is long and germans were atacking not only from the south east to spread RAF thin. Thanks to the radar and integrated early warning system which worked as a force multiplier. RAF was able to efficiently use limited resources. With Spitfires and hurricanes short range, limited numbers of pilots, RAF would not be able to keep patrols flying and covering all the directions.
Imagine that within living memory that almost every European was colonised by Germany. Should have left it that way to avoid the misery of the thankless and expensive task of rescuing the continent eh?
The thought had crossed my mind, especially when you consider how they treated us during the Brexit negotiations, and the wrangling over supplies of the vaccine in 2021. Disgraceful.
Same. And I did a school project on BoB in 1968. Been a huge fan ever since. Never seen anyone spell out the top-driver factors to the penny, citing various sources… Good job 👏🏻
Decent video and I enjoyed it. Couple of points. The number of British civilian casualites was given but not the German one, even though the RAF bombing campaign was referenced. Also, and this is a purely personal thing, I found the Hitler thought balloon silly and risked trivialising something of historical importance.
Thanks for the feedback Harry. You're right, I should have included a number for German civilian casaulties, but it didn't surface naturally in any of the books I used for research. I'll try to remember to keep it balanced for next time. The thought bubble was purely to get past RUclips censors. The video got flagged the first time I uploaded it, and I guess refering to Adolf and using the term "superstar" didn't go down well with the RUclips bots! But hey, it's their platform and I have to play by their rules.😀
Just a word for the women pilots of the The Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) who flew the new planes from factory to airfield, who were virtual test pilots on hastily built aircraft and who never knew that day which plane they would have to fly, sometimes at night or for a few in fog. There was no gun for the pilot if she stumbled across a German straggler; she was civilian but he was usually armed. After an arduous flight the male navigator would be invited into the male-only mess for a hot cup of tea and a meal, she would have to wait outside eating whatever sandwiches she’d brought with her. The navigator duly received his campaign medal, she was for decades unknown and ignored, but without those pilots, Amy Johnson who perished among them, the Battle of Britain would have had a very different ending.
The biggest threat to the ATA pilots was the weather and their navigation skills. None were threatened by enemy aircraft. The ladies weren't test pilots, that was done at the factory and they didn't fly fighters until summer 1941. The ATA pilots delivered aircraft from the factory to MU's. Later on they helped deliver repaired aircraft. They weren't trained in gunnery, combat manouvers or even trained in aerobatics. It seems you have a contemporary axe to grind.
My own research brings me very close to your estimates. Nobody can know for certain whether or not the Germans would have actually attempted Operation Sealion, unless the Luftwaffe had achieved the results promised by Herman Goring. There remains also the fact that the British could have had the advantage of Frank Whittle’s jet engine, had those in.command not dismissed it as a gimmick.😊
Germany didn’t produce as many fighters in 1940 because German industry had not actually been on a war footing for years. Not only was industry not yet working at full capacity, it was still producing many consumer items for the general population. This was due to a combination of factors including the shambles of Germany’s balance of payments and the fact that Hitler feared that depriving the civilian population for what was billed as a short war would cause support for the war to plummet. Many think the fact that German production continued to increase until the end of the war indicated that the strategic bombing campaign was a failure. However, by the end of the war production was actually running at 100% capacity and all the previous slack in capacity had finally been taken up, and very little of it was consumer items.
"Not only was industry not yet working at full capacity, it was still producing many consumer items for the general population. This was due to a combination of factors including the shambles of Germany’s balance of payments and the fact that Hitler feared that depriving the civilian population for what was billed as a short war would cause support for the war to plummet. " Sounds like German production plans were set for a Special Military Operation rather than a war.... how history resonates.
The 109 was a ground Looper, on landing and take off. Read that in not perfect weather the odds of crashing was as high as 23%, these losses were not listed as combat related.
5:25 Is that a 1940's British photo retouching effort? I'm trying to figure out what might explain the obviously lighter space within the polygon contained by the wings of the two aircraft at the lower right.
Don't forget that for German forces to advance that quickly there was a *lot* of far cups made on the French and British side. A certain Colonel of French tanks CdeG) being one of the culprits along with the French military commander (can't remember his name at the moment) but he insisted living in a house that *didn't* have even a telephone line so he was difficult to contact to get orders. A real biggie was the French reconnaissance pilot who wasn't believed about the German armour that was massing for the attack. If a raid had bombed the crap out of that then the war would have been over before it began but no, Mr General I live in a Command Post that I can't be contact at, basically said _sucre blu massed boche armor and troops what a load of bull merde and the report was dismissed as false._
Yes, you are correct. It was the French general Maurice Gamelin who had a headquarters without a phone. It is also a fact that the French had a lot of information about German movements and preparations. It wasn't ONE reconnaissance pilot who wasn't believed. There were MANY indications of German preparations. The problem was that the French were receiving reports but not analysing them and then asking the question, "why?", various things were happening. No-one had the task of assimilating the intelligence and then relating it to operational planning.
Ultra allowed Dowding/Park to know how many LW aircraft were tasked and how many replacements were being sent in. That int was critical info for Dowding's strategy, but he didn't trust L-M with that info, hence the friction that evolved.
The Germans lost all of that skill and experience for nothing. You have to wonder about their leadership and how many of their decisions were based on emotion.
The total operational strength of the Luftwaffe in June 1941 at the Start of Barbarossa was similar to the operational strength they deployed against Britain in July 1940 - more fighters but less bombers. But, as the video pointed out, what they sent against Britain was only a portion of the total Luftwaffe at the time (80% according to this video). Which means several months after the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe still hadn't recovered. Take those ~650 operational fighters (some obsolete models) for RAF Fighter Command in June 1940. Roll this forward to May 1941 and it was 880 Hurricanes and Spitfires - which still doesn't count the aircraft deployed to Egypt and the Mediterranean. In 1939 the Chamberlain government established a program to train pilots in Canada and other Commonwealth countries. Part of the shortage of pilots during the Battle of Britain is that many of them were deployed to training programs such as this to train replacement pilots and additional pilots for a growing air force. The graduates from these training programs started to arrive in Britain in September 1940. It was just going to get worse for the Germans if they hadn't shifted to night bombing. Problem for the Germans is that they overestimated the effect they were having on the RAF and thought victory would soon arrive. Meanwhile the RAF overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe and thought they were still playing catch-up against a growing enemy force. Germany couldn't afford a long drawn out attritional war in the skies, but this was the sort of battle that the British prepared for.
The confidence boost from the victory in France sent the already deluded Nazis off the deep end. First there was this, but even worse was Barborrosa a year later. They truly believed they were unbeatable and paid a price for it
Thanks. Obviously we should never forget that these weren't numbers but brave young men from both sides. I'm no military expert but I've always thought that a sea invasion on the UK by Germany was an almost impossible task. The Royal Navy was just too strong with literally hundreds of ships available and Britain would have been prepared to sacrifice a good proportion of it if necessary. German landings might have been possible but resupply? Most of the German landing barges were river craft. Unsuitable for the channel. They'd not survive long. It's notable that the German navy itself never thought an invasion possible.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 true. But the home fleet in 1940 consisted of around 140 ships of destroyer and above + 25 Submarines + escorts. Losing half that would have been a sacrifice worth making to thwart an invasion and I'm sure they would have done it. Initial landings might have been possible, but resupply? There wouldn't have been a German barge or transport still floating.
There was a whole multitude of numbers quoted. There was no indications of which ones I need to know, or why I need to know them. Could you please reiterate?
At night they didn't have to dogfight, thankfully. I read somewhere once that twice an entire squadron of them did not return from their bombing mission. Their cas. rate was pretty frightening My uncle was the gunner in one, as kids we were warned 'never ask him about the war'. Taboo subject.
@@AudieHolland In the video intro there is a photo of a Blenheim (either side of the minute mark), although hard to tell as it's a mangled wreck. The photo was taken in Bremen docks. My uncle was obs and killed along with the rest of the crew in the bombing raid. Nothing to with the BofB as it was 14 July 1941 the following year. Buried in Germany, his memory is honoured on Weymouth's seafront's war memorial.
The Hurricane failed to shoot down a single plane....according to the after action interviews with shot down German aircrew. All were shot down by Spitfires :-)
@@rexbarron4873to be fair you could say the same with Allied Tankers who claimed every Allied tank destroyed in Normandy was knocked out by a Tiger or an 88, even when neither Tigers or 88mm guns were in the area.
Great narrative and perspective. Britain had to muster all its might in defending her nation and its people. Unfortunately, not enough could be done to save her empire in the Far East as by that time alot of her air assets were diminished and priority was to defend Great Britain. In comparison, today, there are less RAF aircraft defending the skies over Britain. Lets hope NATO and the alliance can defend itself against any adversaries.
Presumably though that small number of aircraft can do a lot more, and everyone else also has less aircraft. But more aircraft would definitely be good, they could maybe get more F35s, and hopefully Tempest or similar projects goes somewhere. But having, you know, 10,000 “spitfires”(Typhoon FGR4s, F35 Lightnings etc…) isn’t really practical anymore, aircraft are far more advanced.
The British leadership discounted Japanese abilities, and Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas and glory hound Bader killed many many experienced pilots with stupid tactics (the Big Wing) over France in 1941. Those planes and pilots could have been used in North Africa or in Malaya.
The problem for the Germans was the Royal Navy, and that's why the RAF needed to be defeated. If that sounds counter-intuitive, it's like this. Germany could launch an assault on the UK by air, and it probably would have worked. However, the issue was re-supply, be it arms, ammunition, medicine, fresh troops and equipment, even food and potentially water & fuel. Due to the Royal Navy this had to be by air, but, if the RAF were too close by, this would be difficult. As such, the RAF had to be reduced in size, and pushed away from the landing areas (probably the south coast and East Anglia).
Not even close.....Germany perhaps could have mounted airborne raids but certainly not an airborne invasion ! Remember, the English Channel was very heavily mined. We knew where we had mined but the Germans did not. The Royal Navy was vastly superior to the German Navy. Indeed Hitler had planned on transporting his army across the channel in open barges. In order to stand any chance of success he had to have total air superiority. Only if the Luftwaffe could seriously harass the Royal Navy sufficiently to disrupt their inevitable attack on the invasion barges would there be any chance of success. With the RAF still contesting the skies the Luftwaffe would have been unable to concentrate on the Royal Navy and the invasion barges would have been doomed. The Germans believed that the RAF was close to collapse.......in fact the RAF was actually stronger at the end of the BoB than it was at the start. The Germans had got absolutely nowhere, worse still unless Germany could keep the pressure on by continuing to attack the RAF, the stream of new Hurricanes and Spitfires becoming
.....available would continue to swing the air war in Great Britains favour. Whilst we could replace our losses, Germany could not build aircraft fast enough..........the best Germany could do was the Blitz (at night) and that did not work either ❤🇬🇧😘
@@garymoore2535 Actually, the Germans in 1940 had already begun slowing production down, and even exporting aircraft. They had decided that the war was won, and so didn't need so many aircraft. This of course changed later.
The idea that the Germans might launch an air assault was never an option. They did not have enough Junker 52 to do so. The J52 could carry 18 troops but only twelve fully kitted paratroopers.
While the RAF rushed new pilots through their OTU's, the skill and quality of those lads was extremely lacking. Perhaps the high attrition of RAF pilots in Oct-Nov reflect that situation. So it's not just about total numbers of pilots, but quality. Also, the 109F was introduced in Oct 1940. Having said that, the big wing was an effective way of protecting and training young, green, replacement pilots. Ref kill ratios, I suggest a review of John Vasco's books on the LW fighters, especially the Me110. It was much higher KR than the Hurricanes especially when allowed to perform as a hunter.
Home Versus Away, that was a Huge advantage. The RAF Recovered many downed Pilots, the Lufwaffe could not. Skill all round, Dowding Control System.... Hard to Beat. Hitler's Failure to put German Manufacturing onto a War Footing until Mid War was a Massive Mistake. Not Enough Brain said Pooh
I decided to go for the period Ensign flags. Both North and South Rhodesia and ZA are mentioned. I have a personal connection to Zimbo, so never forget them.
Are the losses to Bomber command and Coastal watch in addition to the losses recorded for Fighter Command? It seems that there were more aircrew killed in Bomber Command than Fighter Command. Extraordinary - and a little known fact of the campaign. Perhaps worthy of a video?
Hey Andrew. Yes, those losses were in addition to what Fighter Command suffered. I suppose that every bomber lost equaled 3-6 men depending on the aircraft. I've got a lot of content in mind for RAF bomber command, but in case you missed it here is a video about the very first RAF bomber raid: ruclips.net/video/bOvBotjuLMI/видео.html
I've always found it interesting that around 550 British pilots died in the Battle of Britain, while over 850 died in accidents flying the Meteor a few years later. In effect the Meteor was able to kill more pilots than the Battle of Britain.
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 Calling the Meteor average would be a compliment . It's that old adage backwards if it doesn't look right it probably isn't good . By the early 1950s we had to get some Sabres from the Canadians ; which did look right .... With Whittle way ahead of his time . We could have led jet fighter design for years . Instead the Germans were allowed to obtain the patent . The Me 262 had faults but was way ahead of the Meteor .
@@AnthonyBrown12324 That's all as maybe but it doesn't change the fact that thirty years is more than a few. As for the Me 262, it's engines weren't based on any design of Whittle's and had far more in common of the designs of Griffith and Constant and as for being way ahead of the Meteor, maybe it was or maybe not but whatever, it wasn't enough to make anyone want it after the war. The Meteor and the Me 262 were both little more than experimental aircraft and neither was a close model for future jet fighters.
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 I am aware the Jumo engine was very different from Whittles but he established the feasibility of jet engines and later turbofan designs .If he had been given the support . We might have been better. The Me 262 established the swept wing and was faster by a good 100mph . Despite unreliable engines . The Russians copied that and our engines . Later known as the Mig 15 so we waited for the Hunter in the 50s . Hawker probably would have come up with something better than the Meteor
@@AnthonyBrown12324 But it wasn't just the Jumo that was different from Whittle's engine (and Whittle's patents) and whilst Whittle may have established the feasibility of jet engines as far as the British were concerned (but even that is debateable) the idea that his designs established the feasibility of jet propulsion as far as any other nation is concerned is based on nothing but speculation. The Me262 didn't establish the swept wing as swept wing designs went back as far as 1910 and as far as it's initial superiority in speed, that was a product of minor design issue since the Meteor matched and surpassed its speed. The Russian's did indeed utilise both British and German design as the basis of the MiG-15 very little of either being based on the Gloster Meteor or the Me 262. Whether Hawker would have come up with something better than the Meteor in that regard is speculation and again none of that changes the fact that thirty years is more than a few.
That graphic of supporting countries’ flags is very misleading, the British had some colonial airmen, a few free poles and free French but were pretty much on their own throughout the Battle of Britain, moral support and the odd international fighter pilot weren’t really relevant.
18% of RAF fighter pilots were foreign airmen from the Commonwealth or Allied nations. 500 of them with 2300 British pilots, that is extremely relevant.
5:05 Germany didn't switch to a war economy until early (May, IIRC) 1943. Until then it was running a standard 1930's style command economy. The British switched to war economy 2 weeks after the war started. The Americans never went to a war economy and fought the entire war as a command economy.
One major advantage the Allied pilots had. Make a dumb mistake, get shot down 50% chance to get back in a plane and learn from the mistake. The Germans had zero opportunity to learn from a dumb mistake
An irksome affected colloquialism and 'glottal stop' and one wonders at sources. Luftwaffe had 2,500 serviceable aircraft at the start of Battle, of which approximately 1,600 were normally 'put up'. Fighter command alone had 1,200 aircraft on the eve of Battle including 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes; however, only 660 of these were serviceable.
My Great Grandfather was down on the South Coast during the Battle of Britain, with a Royal Artilliery Anti Aircraft gun battery. At first, they would bang away every night, and not hitting anything. The town near their battery, campaigned to have the guns moved because of the distubance they were causing to their sleep. Then, when the battery actually managed to shoot down an aircraft, they became heroes to the villagers with everyone wanting to buy them a pint.
Scot Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt descendant of James Watt KCB FRS FRAeS invented British Radar. Tracking stations called Chain Home integral to The Dowding System along E & S coasts of England in time WWII in 1939. On 2 April 1935, Scot Watson-Watt received a patent on a radio device for detecting and locating an aircraft. Radar operators could see German planes manoeuvring on air fields in France. Direct telephone lines were installed from radar stations to plotting stations in London. Scot Air Chief Marshal Hugh Caswall Tremenheere Dowding GCB GCVO CMG 1882 1970 was in charge Fighter Command, Dowding’s mantra; isolate them, pursue them one by one, do not give them pause, attack them before they release their bombs German bombers not the fighters are our main goal,: concentrate on them, break their formation.
Very good, except for your description of German aircrew captured during the Battle of Britain being sent as POWs to "North America". How hard would it have been for you to say "CANADA" as their destination? My country contributed many pilots to the RAF during the Battle of Britain and then many more to the air fight after the Royal Canadian Air Force was formed. (The other major part of North America fighting in World War II only joined after Pearl Harbor in 1941.) Canada contributed the most to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan which trained 131,500 personnel (including one of Princess Catherine's grandfathers); the second highest contributor was South Africa which trained 33,347 aircrew. Canada manufactured 16,418 aircraft for the war. And convoys from Canada brought much-needed agricultural products across the North Atlantic to help feed Britons. Points to you for stressing how multinational was the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Without the colonies -- and Polish fighters -- Britain would have been toast during WWII.
All very good points. Honestly I had a whisper of a memory that some German POWs captured in 1940 had been transferred from Canada to the US, so was just playing it safe.
The truth is the Luftwaffe never recovered from the Battle of Britain, and to some extent the Battle of France. Later in Crete they would lose more aircraft, especially precious JU52s transports which were already in short supply.
Can a German speaker please tell me if the pronunciation of Dornier and Junkers is correct here? Chris on Military Aviation History is German and seems to pronounce them differently.
I'd go with Chris' pronunciation as he's German. I can only try, but it's hard to unlearn something I've been saying in a British accent for 30 years, lol.
@@CalibanRising I've always pronounced them the way you do as well, so I was surprised by Chris's pronunciation. I had to assume he is correct, but then I wondered if he might be anglicizing the words when he speaks English instead of German. I speak only English so I don't know if that is even a thing with these words.
Hitler didn’t need to invade the U.K. He needed to be in a position to get them to the negotiating table. If a truce could be decided, then think of the spare troops he would have had for attacking the Soviet Union. Winning the Battle of Britain was crucial in keep the British actively opposed to Germany, as without the air superiority the British would have been on the back foot, and therefore forcing Germany to fight on more than one front.
Fighter command pilots. Don't forget the allied pilots which included future Australian PM John Gorton RAAF. Did the German POW's immediately go to the USA? A neutral country at the time. More likely Canada.
Thanks for the comment. I think I covered the multi-national nature of Fighter Command in the first part of the video, and yes you're right most German POWs made it to Canada, which is part of North America!
I've always wondered about that. Where did the bullets and shells end up? You don't have any sources you can point me to, do you? I'd love to look into this more. Thanks.
Is there a mistake with the German production numbers listed for 1940? You give over 10 000 planes produced in 1940, yet the Germans apparently only had about 2 000 in Jun 1940.
I think that Overy's figures cover aircraft of all types including combat, training, transport and any other type of aircraft built. That might cover some of the aircraft on strength at the start of the battle, but many of these would have been produced before 1940. Also, we need to remember that not every LW aircraft was used in the battle. Some were stationed elsewhere or didn't have the range (109s in Norway) to participate.
Based on Franks it's 969 operational losses of all Fighter Command types. 382 Spits, which suggest most of the damaged ones you mention were either repaired or not included as W/Os.
@@CalibanRising Its currect results of my research from ORBs and Form 622. The number 937 is probably the lowest possible. Some Spitfires were severely damaged two times, several three times. Number of severely damaged or destroyed serials is currently 844. You are the third in the world to know it.
@@CalibanRising Franks wasn't historian, to say it mildly. Number 937 is based on my research from ORBs and Form 622. Quite a number of Spitfire serials were severely damaged/destroyed several times, twice and few even three times. Current number of several damaged/destroyed Spitfire serials is 844. You are the third in the world to know it.
i think the short fuel fraction of the 109 , the RAF having the "force multiplier " of home turf and the nazis way underestimating the number of fighters required handed the battle to the home team. just look at how the allies covered their air raids into germany with staged waves of fighters and sometimes still came up slightly shorthanded--
A very clear and concise explanation of the current day 20:20 hindsight consensus. A valuable contribution. Congratulations. If I were in hypercritical mode I might say it could do with just a little more contextusalisation. The resasons why it was important to win There has been a historiography of accounts from early personal accounts from pilots and commanders to the debunkers and debaggers, spitfire sceptics of the 70's USA cointingent say and on to the analytics of V. Orange and co. |An account ofg those changg accountsmight vbe a isfdful part 2 There is also as "RUclips ography" or social media commentography that is not written yet and may be for someone less close to the process Are we xpone now - or willl the arguments rolll round and round forever? Short of some new Primary evidence coming to light*I think we must be close * the 1945 100 year official SEcrets Act release might have some more i guess. Enigma uses, Chain HOme and Low and anti knickebein stuff possibly? anyway well done
OAP Here ,,, My Mother was a War Nurse,, My Father Royal Navy,, He Lost 30 Ship Mates in one Go… in tha Med… on Eve of 1943- 1944 ,, He was Back at D Day….. 😇🏴🇬🇧🥃🍺🏴👍
The Battle of Britain could not have been fought without the Hawker Hurricane. In any dog fight the Hurricane in the hands of a competent pilot was a match for the BF109 and 110.
Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.
Great video as always.
It strikes me how few historians pay any attention to the fundamental doctrinal differences between the two air forces, and indeed the two countries.
Germany had established its doctrine around short campaigns and recovery. Both the army and air force were set up for this in every aspect. Production was focused on complete vehicles and equipment and almost none on spare parts. For the Luftwaffe only around 10% of the bf109 production was dedicated to spare parts. So if an aircraft was damaged and there was no immediate wreck on the airfield for scavenging, it was another write off.
The units were meant to enter a campaign, fight and take the losses and once it was over, new aircraft and men would join. But rarely during the campaign itself.
We also see it with the training. For Luftwaffe, pilots were trained to a decent standard and then sent to the units where operational training was just that. Getting up to standard while flying with the unit you would fight your next campaign with. It was this latter part where you would learn the latest tactics and so on. It is one of the reasons why none of the German aces or veterans were rotated back to train new pilots - they were expected to train them when they arrived during the recovery for next campaign.
This proved crucial, first with the Battle of Britain and later in Russia, where there never really was any period of peace to recover and retrain with new pilots. It worked well with the short campaigns in Poland, Denmark/Norway, France and Balkans, but came out short when sustained action forced the units to keep fighting. This explains the fewer and fewer pilots as the battle went on - few new pilots would be sent to the units during a campaign, it was against doctrine, and those who did arrive were not properly trained just like many of their British counterparts.
Both industrially, doctrinally and for training purposes, the German forces were set up for short "sprints" and recovery and one of the reasons the Luftwaffe took such a blow was because the air battles over Britain went on for far longer than expected and for what Luftwaffe could sustain.
Britain, on the other hand, had set up production and training to be in it for the long run. Aircraft production devoted a significant amount of output to spare parts so the existing aircraft could be kept operational. So a damaged plane would rarely be a write off, like with the Germans. The ground crews were trained in repairs and brought up to a high efficiency so they could keep the units at full strength.
Apart from the frantic struggle to get pilots for Fighter Command in the summer of 1940 (the famous grabbing from every other service), RAF had set up training of pilots and ground crew so there would be a steady flow of well trained pilots reaching front line units at all times. There was basic training but unlike the Germans, they had OTU's, Operational Training Units, in which the new pilots were taught the latest tactics and doctrines by veterans who were rotated out of combat to get rest and teach the very latest to the new ones. So unlike Luftwaffe, when RAF pilots reached their unit, they were experienced and up to date and needed no further training.
This fundamental difference in philosophy is one often overlooked yet makes a lot of things so easy to understand. Like how German fighter pilots late war were apparently so "easy" for USAAF escort fighters to shoot down - they were simply not fully trained before being sent up against the bomber fleets. The German Aces flew until they died, were captured or wounded. Most of the German pilots lost to USAAF escort fighters were not veterans, but fresh pilots. Many of the veterans survived the war because they knew how to survive, but they never got the chance to properly teach it to the replacements who were supposed to "learn on the job".
Also, the USAAF training program set up before Pearl harbor was based on the British approach and it ensured only experienced and confident pilots would ever reach a frontline and it proved vastly successful. Sorry for the long wall of text, it was hard to explain with few words. But fascinating aspect none the less.
Thank you! You clarified some things the post didn't. What I saw was that the whole Battle of Britain was a very close thing and ended as a war of attrition, which it was, but not on equal terms. What was true of Germany was also true of Japan, with the best Pilots slowly being depleted and, at the end, poorly trained Pilots being massacred by well trained Allied Pilots, who probably could have given the early war Aces a run for their money.
feels like you should make a youtube video on it. Would be interesting maybe find some documents to back up your claims, maybe video of veterians that said such things or manuals. would be a good 20-30 min video.
Excellent post thank you
Thank you very much for your comment. I have read a number of books about the Battle of Britain, including some dealing with some of the "myths" about the Battle, but had not come across this perspective explained so clearly before. I knew that the Luftwaffe was intended to provide assistance to the Wehrmacht, and not act so much as a "stand alone" force. Therefore the heavy emphasis on short range aircraft but low emphasis on large, four engined bombers. I would take issue with you about your comment the the "- - Luftwaffe pilots were trained to a decent standard - - " My understanding is that the Luftwaffe training was of a very high standard. Not just a "decent" standard. However, EXCELLENT comment. THANK YOU.
Yeah I agree with that... it sits alongside some other things that were rooted in German policy that I lump under one topic... "leadership"... in short, the British leadership and all of its policies were light years ahead of anything the Germans produced, right from the national leadership right down to the heads of airforce. How can you even compare Herman Goerings leadership to that superb helmsmanship of sir Hugh Dowding?
The British Command and Control SYSTEM was crucial in the battle. Secondly the Luffewaffe was designed as a close support air arm NOT as an independent offensive entity.
The National Grid played it's part as well, having only just been completed in time for WW2.
@DC.409 it also had redundancy allow electricity to be re-routed with greater ease, allow the radar stations no to be crippled by the loss of a single failure.
also having an influx of professional polish czech and other pilots certainly helped reduced the lack of qualified pilots available to the raf. it also gave the raf a serious rump of battle hardened veterans.
annother important component was the Royal Observer Corps who played a very important role in identifying enemy aircraft once they were overland.
And the Luftwaffe wasn't really sure what it was doing, no coherent strategy.
agreed
the command and control system of chain home. observer corp, reporting to a central hub allowed the RAF "NOT" to have standing patrols thus reducing wear and tear on men and machinery (what was the service interval for a merlin engine) also having the crews only to wait untill needed helped in fatigue factor
Thank you for the most comprehensive account of the Battle of Britain I have seen so far.
Thanks for watching Steve!
Regarding numbers of pilots and aircraft available for the Luftwaffe for the BoB: even though the Battle of France was a disaster for the British, it was a costly victory for the Nazis. They lost 28% of their aircraft during the campaign, with a further 5% damaged and in need of repair. This no doubt helped even the odds for the RAF in July 1940.
Excellent, glad you added in the defiant, blenhiem etc
Cheers Remus!
Thank you for the Checkerboard on the Hawker Hurricane.
Very good. Synopsis of the battle , which not only shows the growing strength of The fighters but also the large effort of bomber command. If a bit of the underdog at the beginning. A game of two halves. We got stronger .
Well done. Short and yet informative.
Thanks for watching
Nice use of stats. Very informative and thought provoking. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
One point of interest where squadron sizes were concerned is the fact that RAF squadrons had 20 aircraft at full strength whereas the Luftwaffe squadrons were 12 aircraft per squadron. As each assumed that the other had squadrons of similar size to their own this meant that the British over estimated how many aircraft the Germans had and the Germans underestimated how many the British had.
Something often missed is that the basis for the RAF's air defence for the Battle of Britain had its origins in WW1 with at first the Zeppelin raids and later the Gotha bombers. This introduced the necessary parts, such as fighter interception, AAA guns and observers and all the planning involved, which were used in the Battle of Britain. So without the much hated Zeppelins and Gothas the Battle of Britain would have been very different.
Those are interesting points, and ones I’ve seen elsewhere.
But I find it hard to believe that the British and the Germans didn’t know the standard size of each other’s squadrons. They knew a lot of details about each other and had broken each other’s codes. Is it possible they would make such fundamental errors in information and analysis?
Maybe there was some fog of war and it colored their thinking, but to be so wildly off seems unlikely.
That’s my thought on this anyway. I could be wrong.
@@adamesd3699 German intelligence gathering was crap, and information sharing was even worse. The luftwaffe scientific staff new about the radar waves generated by Chain Home, but didn't tell anyone. It took a few weeks of being intercepted before the pilots started to think they were being watched too well.
Ultimately, squadron sizes didn't matter under the Dowding system, and the manner in which Sir Keith Park fought. The idea wasn't to overwhelm the incoming raids, but to engage them for the bulk of the time they were inbound...when there was no more inbound threat, then the fighters could engage on the outbound route. It was an angle grinder approach, just keep at them and eventually they will crack, which happened.
Fascinating points: I have never read those before.
@@adamesd3699 German intel gathering was pretty poor. It looks like with the exception of man all the spies they sent to Britain were captured and most were turned and used against the Germans by the British.
The one who was not caught committed suicide, possibly because the Germans were so into what the other spies were telling them that he became sidelined.
That's an interesting comment about the relative sizes of the squadrons. I didn't know that. Thank you.
A great short video and one that even gives the Bomber Command and the Fleet Air Arm losses as this is very sorely missed by most people it's generally all about the fighters...
Strongly agree with comments about other arms i.e. Bomber Command. The few references I have ever seen say they were extremely active flying missions against airfields and ports where barges were gathering. I wish someone with the time and skills would work to fill in this gap. Perhaps another video Caliban?
Well Ricky, it just so happens I'm working on a video about the very first Bomber Command mission of the war. Should be the next one out if all goes well!
Indeed. Later on more RAF aircrew were killed in one Bomber Command attack than By Fighter Command in the whole battle and many more in the attacks on Normandy invasion targets but you rarely hear about them in comparison.
@@CalibanRising Great Thanks .
@@Dalesmanablethat is true but not a fair comparison. Single crew against multiple crews.
Wonderful video. Fantastically done
Glad you enjoyed it
The one crucial number was 'zero'...the exact number of bombs in the luftwaffe arsenal capable of penetrating royal navy decking of any ship larger than destroyer. Without those, all the brits had to do was make a wave a half metre high and it would have swamped the german river and canal barges they planned to invade with.
Devastating, simple comment.Thank y ou.
1.Destroy the RAF airfields/hangers in 11 group.
2, Destroy all radar stations
3. Get the RN into the Chanel, and sink as many as possible.
4. Get a division of infantry into Southern England and keep sinking ships.
The loss of lots of destroyers this early in the war, could have been fatal..
@@philipambler3825 Good luck with 3 & 4. The Luftwaffe had recently failed badly at Dunkirk, hadn't been trained in anti-shipping techniques, didn't have an operational torpedo bomber until mid 1942, couldn't operate at night, and in the whole of WW2 sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser.
To get the RN to commit its anti-invasion resources ( 70 light cruisers and destroyers within 5 hours steaming of Dover, supported by around 500 smaller warships) the Germans would have to give the Admiralty a reason to send them. Which, of course, they never dared do.
Oh, and to demonstrate how greatly RN destroyers resources had been degraded, by mines, U-boats, and of course the mighty Luftwaffe, just look at the actual figures. In September, 1939, the RN (including the Canadian & Australian navies) had 193 destroyers & leaders in commission. By late September, 1940, when Sealion might have been attempted, the RN had been reduced to a 'mere' 182. Of course, in September, 1939 the RN was spread around the world. In September 1940, it was concentrated in the Mediterranean & in Home Waters.
Good luck even getting a division of infantry ashore, in view of the above. As the British by September 1940 had 34.5 operational divisions in the UK, 20 of which were in the Home Counties and East Anglia, and as your single infantry division had no means of re-supply, I wonder how many days it would have lasted? Or should that be 'how many hours?'
My father was in the raf in ww2, he said we were just bloody lucky, Germany started to bomb cities (it was an accident the German bombers got lost) dad said they couldn't have taken another week of attacks on the airfields. He was one of the ground crews keeping the spits and hurricanes in the air, and it was getting bloody difficult to do as the trained ground crews were getting harder to replace 🧐
He wasn't wrong. In an odd way we've got Hitler partly to thank for our victory in the Battle of Britain. His strategic interference was crucial.
"In August, two German pilots had dropped their bombs on London, having flown off-course at night. In retaliation, the RAF bombed the Berlin suburbs, enraging Hitler. Hitler ordered a change in strategy, concentrating their raids on London and other cities. 1,000 Luftwaffe aircraft took part in a single attack the first day on 7 September."
Correct.
I put this forward in Quora. Most British stubbornly refused to admit this.
One more month of bombing the airfields and the battle would have been lost.
Hitler and Goering were idiots.
It was Churchill who first ordered the indiscriminant bombing of Berlin citizens 25 Aug 1940, precisely to goad Hitler into diverting away from airfields and command centers and military/strategic targets. About the same time, Goering ordered his 109s and 110s to stay with the bombers, putting them into a defensive role, unable to position themselves to take the initiative. For that reason, the Hurricanes were not being slaughtered as easily in September.
Your report was very well documented and the order was superb. Well done and I’m trusting you to the accuracy of the BoB.
Thanks for watching!
Nicely done video.
Liked the graphics and text on screen.
Thanks for watching Barry!
Love stats and numbers. Thank you
Detailed and fact filled with all the info required to get a sense of what led to ultimate victory. I was disappointed not to see the South African flag amongst the countries of the participants of the Battle of Britain when they made a contribution not only in fighter pilots but at the leadership level with the likes of Quinton Brand who was OC 10 fighter group who worked well with Keith Park, as well as the contribution right from the start of Sailor Malan who became a Group Captain. They should not be forgotten.
Thanks for the comment Sid. I used the 1940 era ensigns instead of the modern flags. South Africa is there, along with her northern neighbours!
In the end RAF pilots shot down in the Battle of Britain had a good chance of survival & damaged planes might be repaired. German pilots were either captured or hoped that they could get back across the channel. Damage or fuel shortage meant many of them did not. Britain looked at the channel & wished it was wider...Germans looked at it & wished it was narrower.
Very true. Also Britain was emphasising production of new planes and pilots. The pipeline of new people and gear was getting into overdrive. A good bit of forethought was useful.
However, the British underestimated the dangers of the Channel. RAF pilots could not rely on rescue services and even after bailing out and floating in their lifevest, hypothermia claimed many lives of pilots who were not rescued (in time), only 'a stone's throw away' from home.*
German pilots had floatplanes and fast patrol boats looking out for them and if none were available, the Luftwaffe had anchored a few floating shelters in the Channel.
* British television did a documentary about the fate of shot down RAF pilots who ended up in the Channel at the start of the Battle.
Floating among the waves, a pilot could barely see over the waves and could not be spotted vice versa. I guess only pilots who were actually seen parachuting had any chance of being rescued.
Actually not true at the start the raf were less likely to survive tjen the germabs as the raf had to relly on random boats unlike german which had an independant coast that would go out and collect survivours from purpose built sea bunkers that floated in the channel. The brit saw these and build like 15 of their own and increased their survival chance
German leadership were living in a dreamland and didn't have a clue when it came to attacking the UK, which was fortunate for the Allies since it gave the RAF the opportunity to utterly decimate a massive chunk of Germany's best and most experienced pilots and crews. As has been mentioned before, many shot down British pilots floated down to safety to fight again.
While the British losses were comparable in terms of downed planes, it's a deceptive figure. British air industry was immense by that point and were pumping out aircraft to simply replace any losses. Added to the vast swathe of pilots recovered safely and there was never going to be any other outcome.
In 'real terms' the permanent loss of experienced German pilots and crews was overwhelmingly in Britain's favour. It was a total victory in that sense.
Add in Beppo Schmidt...the Luftwaffe Chief of Intelligence, who was rather incompetent. His underestimate4 of the RAF's remaining strength [by about 50%] contributed to the decision to change from bombing Sector Stations, to bombing London
There would have been far more Spitfires had good ol' Lord Nuffield not delayed the construction of Castle Bromwich and production of Spits. He also financed the BUF newpaper and backed Oswald Mosley .
Another excellent video.
Over the years, I've slowly changed how I view the BOB.
In size and scope, I actually find it now a small, but very important battle in WW2. I only say that in full comparison to the size and scale of fighting that came later on.
And, if we tally up bomber command and coastal command losses, and we widen out the scope of the battle to what it should be - the losses and numbers are more equal. It becomes more of a tactical victory for Britain, and statistically more like a draw - but a siege that failed / was broken - is a win condition.
The German juggernaut was unable to gain a win condition in the battle.
Cheers!
A good short video of the numbers. Can I highly recommend Mr Bungay's book - The most dangerous enemy - for some great detail.
I agree, I leaned heavily on that book for a lot of figures.
EXCELLENT. Remarkable job, CONGRATULATIONS. Greetings from Mexico City
Battle of Britain Note
It was not until the Luftwaffe radio monitoring service and the German Post office set up their listening stations on the coast of France in July 1940 that the Luftwaffe realized it was up against something new and of vital importance. First the operators discovered that the ether on the 12 meter band was alive with signals radiating out across the channel from the tall and seemingly silent radar masts along the English coast.
The second shock came as the Channel convoy battles developed. British voices could be heard on H.F. accurately directing formations of fighters towards unseen German raiders. The air was full of voices, calmly and systematically placing fighters here and there and guiding others back to base. It dawned on the listeners that this was part of a complex and smooth-running organization of great size. -
Chapter 10 "The System" from "The Narrow Margin - The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power" Derek Wood and Derek Dempster (c) 1961
This is fascinating. Thanks for putting this up. I might have trouble finding that book though so any other references?
@@keithmclean4283 Just Google it.
To me, The Narrow Margin book is the definitive account of the B.O.B.
They failed to detect British Chain Home Radar even with an offshore voyage of the Graf Zeppelin before the war. Chain Home was a simple technology put into place in time to be useful, the Germans missed it because they were expecting something much more sophisticated, Chain Home didn’t even sweep across the sky.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 All of that, including a day by day account of the battle is written in: "The Narrow Margin - The Battle of Britain and the Rise of Air Power" Derek Wood and Derek Dempster (c) 1961
Well worth the read. Needles to say, because of the painstaking detail there are incidents mentioned at the father's aerodrome - Croydon.
Makes you realise it was never even close and even if the Luftwaffe had won some sort of air superiority for any period the Royal Navy would still have obliterated any invasion attempt. When many of the surviving participants wargamed an invasion in the 1970s I think, the scenario it was clear from early on the Kriegsmarine couldn’t supply any landed forces due to British superior naval strength. Even with total air and sea superiority several years planning, brilliant intelligence duplicity and incredible US military power the reverse in June 1944 was still very challenging. So the fag packet 1940 Sealion never had a prayer. Thank god for the English Channel and hence any wise UK government should always maintain a powerful Royal Navy.
A serious and determined cross channel invasion by the Germans would have shortened the war dramatically. With them losing.
With drones and cruise missiles, I am not sure that surface vessels are all that useful any more.
Thank you for sharing your most informative and excellent presented research on Britain's defences during WW2, in which my father volunteered and his Lancaster never returned to East Kirkby and my stepfather's system of air defence.
The RAF fighters shown at 2:30 are in post-Battle of Britain colors. The sky-colored spinners and fuselage bands, and the night-colored portside underwing on the Hurricane are the giveaways.
That was a good pick up but that goes both ways it was an easy miss which is probably why it here
Actually the black wing / white wing was pre Battle of Britain and it's possible some were not repainted . The battle lasted nearly 6 months and there could be a variety of finishes . Not long after the schemes were changed to grey / green but I don't think you can be too pedantic about actual dates ; as I doubt if they would repaint all the surviving aircraft .
The Hurricane is only just outside the BoB dates and it has the earlier white/black underside, the image’s being taken from a 1/24 model decal set for a Mk1A of 306 Sqn in November 1940.
@@Dalesmanable like I said some earlier aircraft survived the Bof B . They did not repaint every aircraft . they had enough problems servicing the aircraft let alone repainting serviceable aircraft > black and white undersides was for recognition for AA gunners . Even before the war . You can find lots of different spinner colours as well . Dates wise you can safely say ; there were no Mkv Spitfires let alone Mkix s as in the 1969 film . I am sure you will find some variety in finishes though . Never the less the Battle of Britain film of 1969 remains unsurpassed for aerial photography so we can forgive the Buchon Me 109s
so what, the video is about numbers and they showed the right type of aircraft?
One of the biggest problems faced by the British was their lack of experienced pilots. Many were cannon fodder for the Germans who, by this time, had accumulated considerable operational experience. You can over-analyze the Battle of Britain but the simple fact is it was a battle neither side could afford to lose. The Americans, when formerly asked by Britain for help, replied by suggesting the Brits send their entire fleet to America as Britain was certain to be defeated. This abject abandonment is conveniently overlooked by many today.
I know that there wasn’t any help available from the US at this stage of the war. But hell - the suggestion that the government send the fleet to the USA is new to me. That’s astounding, and damning! Mind you, their ambassador at the time, Joe Kennedy, was a nasty little sh!t.
Remember Churchill's speech about the Royal Navy continuing the fight if Britain fell? That was where that came from. Joe Kennedy was a true POS no argument.
and as typical of all too many you try and blame others for your own mistakes. AT the time it all started, NO ONE really thought England could hold.
NO ONE. at that time Germany and the Luftwaffe looked unbeatable. AND by the way you also ignore all those sympathetic to Hitler in England amongst the upper class AND the peace faction that was a lot stronger than YOU will ever admit
As regards no help, the US sent what they could which was not much that really could help in the air battle.
Also once again showing the typical stupidity of those like you, the US was at that time Neutral in name but FDR was doing all he could which really was not all that much for several reasons. 1) we did not have that much to send. As regards aircraft, not many of ours were up to modern standards. 2) we were JUST BEGINNING to prepare for war due to the isolationist attitude of most Americans- which is quite easy to understand after all the British propaganda from the last war. We had fought and bled and here the Europeans were going at it again 20 years later. Why get involved? 3) many thought that England deserved to get its butt kicked due to the treaty of Versailles which was the biggest single factor in Hitlers rise to power. You broke it, you fix it was the attitude of many 4) The idiotic neutrality acts that the pacifists and isolationists had pushed through Congress hamstrung FDR in many ways. I could go on but I doubt you are honest enough to admit how stupid you sounded.
The reason the USA came into the war because it realised if Britain went down the pan it would leave Herr Hitler an entirely free hand in mainland Europe. The war that everyone knew would happen between Germany and Russia would have ended up with either Hitler or Stalin in control of the entirety of continental Europe. That dwarves the economic output of the USA.... controlled by either Uncle Joe or Hitler. That was the reason the US came into the war. For sure Britain would never have been able to win the war on its own but if it had gone down the pan ....
Who would have stopped that much power ?
How would the USA even been able to get their forces into the conflict in Europe with the then most powerful navy in the world (the RN) out of the game, or in worst case reinforcing the Axis fleets patrolling the worlds seas.
Never in the field of human conflict might be a politicians guff but in this case it was probably true.
The British did have a large number of experienced pilots. A lot of those who fought in the Battle of Britain had seen combat over France and western Europe in the 1939-40 campaigns. That being said the Luftwaffe did have more pilots of experience in general than the RAF when the battle started in July 1940.
I think you will find that RAF Fighter Command did have a lot of experienced pilots at the beginning of the Battle: Peter Townsend; Robert Stamford-Tuck; Christopher Foxley-Norris; James Lacey and many others who were all pre-war trained. It is true that by September trining on a Fighter OTU had been cut to two weeks. However, what is overlooked is that Dowding was able to rotate squadrons throughout the Battle. For example 41 Sqn spent most of August at Catterick before returning to 11 Group in late August; likewise in mid-August 92 Sqn was in Wales but back in 11 Group by September, to give just two examples. Something the Luftwaffe never did.
As for the British fleet, the Americans were concerned about it falling into German hands but never demanded it be sent to the USA. In fact in the summer of 1940 FDR sent Colonel Bill Donovan over to the UK in order to assess Britain's chances of survival. Donovan assessed Britain's chances as sound, being in agreement with the then US military attache of the time. Their assessment was at odds with that of the US Ambassador, Joseph Kennedy, who was completely defeatist but no longer trusted by anyone, including the professional diplomats in his own embassy and FDR and Sumner Welles back in Washington. The concern was real, likewise the British were concerned over the French fleet, hence the attack at Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July.
One final point was that the Luftwaffe had suffered enormously during the Battle of France, having sustained losses in both aircraft and aircrew which had not been made good.
Thank you for your effort which explains much in a short time with many important facts and observations. I only wish others did it with their much larger budgets and time frames to work with, including their time spent on graphics, animations and distractions from the core knowledge we are really interested in.
Thanks for watching.
I'm glad you mentioned it as it is often missed in modern scholarship but was known at the time was the role of Bomber Command in the Battle of Britain as the RAF was launching counter raids on the German Airbases and logistics hubs as well as the invasion barges in Northern France, The Low Countries, and Germany. This is nowadays a massively overlooked part of the battle and when Churchill was referring to the few in the Battle of Britain if you look at the entire speech he was also talking about the Bombers, not just Fighter command as in the previous sentence he stated: "we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power" The whole speech lasted 50 mins but we only ever talk about a less than 2 min section. This video will hopefully help to get rid of the false narrative about the battle that only started in the late war due to the backlash against bomber command after Dresden etc and the political decision by Churchill to distance himself from bomber command. In this video, I'm glad you make reference to this but I wish more of the video was dedicated to this especially going into what the RAF was bombing, etc as it feels like a bit of an afterthought, when you do include the RAF counter-bombing raids on France, etc the forces and the losses on both sides are roughly equal and this is also interesting as Goring stated that the Battle of Britain was a tactical draw that only became a victory when Hitler decided to move forces away for preparation for a war with the USSR which Goring actually opposed.
I have never heard that there was so much more in that speech until your comment, just the "Never in the field....etc".
I am glad that Churchill did actually recognise the contribution of Bomber Command, but in subsequent years, in the public eye, they were almost ignored, apart from a few special ops like the dam raid, and even unfairly criticised for raids like Dresden.
War is horrible, but the bravery of all those who put their lives on the line to save us should not be ignored. Thank you for enlightening me.
Hey there aviation enthusiasts! If you're an avid model builder, used to build them as a kid but want to get back into it, or have never built a model before, I highly recommend checking out Airfix for your next model plane: calibanrising.com/airfix/
With a wide range of models available, including the Spitfire and Hurricane as well as the BF 109 and 110, there's something for every level of model builder. And if you're just starting out, Airfix offers a range of starter sets to help you get the hang of things.
So, whether you're a seasoned pro or a beginner, head on over to Airfix and take your love for aviation to new heights with their fantastic range of models.
Please my link to start browsing models right now:calibanrising.com/airfix/
you should do one about the
RED TAILS that would be great to hear about. total respect to them
all.
Thank you for sharing all those facts and figures, though I did expect someone to shout "That's numberwang!" after about halfway through. 😉
lol
the battle of Britian in my opinion was the first turning point in the war against the germans.
Also, Battle Damage Repair was a factor
Should do one about the RED TAILS as well total respect to them all . that would be brilliant to hear about.
Great video
well done cali, great vid
Thanks for watching Martin!
Don't forget Radio Direction FInding?
"The Luftwaffe started the Battle of Britain at 50% strength, and running at 30% efficiency" Kesselring.
Radar technoloy is not even mentioned in this video )))
Radar is not a part of the equation when we're talking losses.
You are quite correct to bring this up, without the Worlds first Radar based integrated air defence system British losses would have been significantly greater and German losses would have been significantly fewer, in fact the RAF would have had to put up standing patrols all along the south east coast of England and only spot the German bombers by pure luck, and there is no way it would have been possible due to the enormous drain on aircraft and pilots, this is exactly what the Germans thought would happen and they did not realise how important the RAF Radar defence system was, the Germans told their bomber crews the RAF was down to its last few fighters but on their next bombing mission they would be intercepted by 50 RAF fighters, the RAF fighters were scrambled when and only when they were needed and then expertly guided to where the German bomber formations were, without that Radar defence system the Germans would almost certainly have won enough air superiority to invade Britain.
Edit; although even if the Germans made a successful landing Churchill was going to deploy Anthrax making Britain uninhabitable for 50 years, there was no way the Germans were going to take Britain.
@@hitime2405 so true. Coastline is long and germans were atacking not only from the south east to spread RAF thin. Thanks to the radar and integrated early warning system which worked as a force multiplier. RAF was able to efficiently use limited resources. With Spitfires and hurricanes short range, limited numbers of pilots, RAF would not be able to keep patrols flying and covering all the directions.
True, but this video examines other matters.
Thanks great video
Glad it was helpful!
Imagine that within living memory that almost every European was colonised by Germany. Should have left it that way to avoid the misery of the thankless and expensive task of rescuing the continent eh?
The thought had crossed my mind, especially when you consider how they treated us during the Brexit negotiations, and the wrangling over supplies of the vaccine in 2021. Disgraceful.
l've never seen the battle put clearly like that before.
Thanks for watching Brian.
Same.
And I did a school project on BoB in 1968. Been a huge fan ever since. Never seen anyone spell out the top-driver factors to the penny, citing various sources… Good job 👏🏻
Decent video and I enjoyed it. Couple of points. The number of British civilian casualites was given but not the German one, even though the RAF bombing campaign was referenced. Also, and this is a purely personal thing, I found the Hitler thought balloon silly and risked trivialising something of historical importance.
Thanks for the feedback Harry.
You're right, I should have included a number for German civilian casaulties, but it didn't surface naturally in any of the books I used for research. I'll try to remember to keep it balanced for next time.
The thought bubble was purely to get past RUclips censors. The video got flagged the first time I uploaded it, and I guess refering to Adolf and using the term "superstar" didn't go down well with the RUclips bots!
But hey, it's their platform and I have to play by their rules.😀
Just a word for the women pilots of the The Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) who flew the new planes from factory to airfield, who were virtual test pilots on hastily built aircraft and who never knew that day which plane they would have to fly, sometimes at night or for a few in fog. There was no gun for the pilot if she stumbled across a German straggler; she was civilian but he was usually armed. After an arduous flight the male navigator would be invited into the male-only mess for a hot cup of tea and a meal, she would have to wait outside eating whatever sandwiches she’d brought with her. The navigator duly received his campaign medal, she was for decades unknown and ignored, but without those pilots, Amy Johnson who perished among them, the Battle of Britain would have had a very different ending.
The biggest threat to the ATA pilots was the weather and their navigation skills. None were threatened by enemy aircraft. The ladies weren't test pilots, that was done at the factory and they didn't fly fighters until summer 1941. The ATA pilots delivered aircraft from the factory to MU's. Later on they helped deliver repaired aircraft. They weren't trained in gunnery, combat manouvers or even trained in aerobatics. It seems you have a contemporary axe to grind.
My own research brings me very close to your estimates. Nobody can know for certain whether or not the Germans would have actually attempted Operation Sealion, unless the Luftwaffe had achieved the results promised by Herman Goring. There remains also the fact that the British could have had the advantage of Frank Whittle’s jet engine, had those in.command not dismissed it as a gimmick.😊
Your an Ace…… Thank you.
Germany didn’t produce as many fighters in 1940 because German industry had not actually been on a war footing for years. Not only was industry not yet working at full capacity, it was still producing many consumer items for the general population. This was due to a combination of factors including the shambles of Germany’s balance of payments and the fact that Hitler feared that depriving the civilian population for what was billed as a short war would cause support for the war to plummet.
Many think the fact that German production continued to increase until the end of the war indicated that the strategic bombing campaign was a failure. However, by the end of the war production was actually running at 100% capacity and all the previous slack in capacity had finally been taken up, and very little of it was consumer items.
"Not only was industry not yet working at full capacity, it was still producing many consumer items for the general population. This was due to a combination of factors including the shambles of Germany’s balance of payments and the fact that Hitler feared that depriving the civilian population for what was billed as a short war would cause support for the war to plummet. "
Sounds like German production plans were set for a Special Military Operation rather than a war.... how history resonates.
@@BPo75 Good observation. I think there are more parallels between Putin and Hitler than many people want to admit.
Can I suggest in hindsight the German prisoners in North America felt that being captured that early in the war was a good thing for the.
The 109 was a ground Looper, on landing and take off. Read that in not perfect weather the odds of crashing was as high as 23%, these losses were not listed as combat related.
Nice to see "sources" at the foot of the video.
Nice.
Thanks for watching Ray!
I always enjoy the observation, " our young men have to shoot down their young men at a rate of 5 to 1 just to stay even." They did it then won!
5:25 Is that a 1940's British photo retouching effort? I'm trying to figure out what might explain the obviously lighter space within the polygon contained by the wings of the two aircraft at the lower right.
Don't forget that for German forces to advance that quickly there was a *lot* of far cups made on the French and British side. A certain Colonel of French tanks CdeG) being one of the culprits along with the French military commander (can't remember his name at the moment) but he insisted living in a house that *didn't* have even a telephone line so he was difficult to contact to get orders. A real biggie was the French reconnaissance pilot who wasn't believed about the German armour that was massing for the attack. If a raid had bombed the crap out of that then the war would have been over before it began but no, Mr General I live in a Command Post that I can't be contact at, basically said _sucre blu massed boche armor and troops what a load of bull merde and the report was dismissed as false._
:nods: As usual. When military ... ahem ... far-cups {:D} occur it is often on the leadership side where things are at their weakest.
The French get a lot of blame for their defeat in 1940, and rightly so.
Yes, you are correct. It was the French general Maurice Gamelin who had a headquarters without a phone. It is also a fact that the French had a lot of information about German movements and preparations. It wasn't ONE reconnaissance pilot who wasn't believed. There were MANY indications of German preparations. The problem was that the French were receiving reports but not analysing them and then asking the question, "why?", various things were happening. No-one had the task of assimilating the intelligence and then relating it to operational planning.
@@markshaw5159 They were fortunate that they had stockpiled enough cheese to see them through the surrender, eh. 🤦♂
What game Is this
Ultra allowed Dowding/Park to know how many LW aircraft were tasked and how many replacements were being sent in. That int was critical info for Dowding's strategy, but he didn't trust L-M with that info, hence the friction that evolved.
My opinion solely without Dowding and Park history might have been different right people, right place right time.
The Germans lost all of that skill and experience for nothing. You have to wonder about their leadership and how many of their decisions were based on emotion.
The total operational strength of the Luftwaffe in June 1941 at the Start of Barbarossa was similar to the operational strength they deployed against Britain in July 1940 - more fighters but less bombers. But, as the video pointed out, what they sent against Britain was only a portion of the total Luftwaffe at the time (80% according to this video). Which means several months after the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe still hadn't recovered.
Take those ~650 operational fighters (some obsolete models) for RAF Fighter Command in June 1940. Roll this forward to May 1941 and it was 880 Hurricanes and Spitfires - which still doesn't count the aircraft deployed to Egypt and the Mediterranean.
In 1939 the Chamberlain government established a program to train pilots in Canada and other Commonwealth countries. Part of the shortage of pilots during the Battle of Britain is that many of them were deployed to training programs such as this to train replacement pilots and additional pilots for a growing air force. The graduates from these training programs started to arrive in Britain in September 1940. It was just going to get worse for the Germans if they hadn't shifted to night bombing.
Problem for the Germans is that they overestimated the effect they were having on the RAF and thought victory would soon arrive. Meanwhile the RAF overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe and thought they were still playing catch-up against a growing enemy force. Germany couldn't afford a long drawn out attritional war in the skies, but this was the sort of battle that the British prepared for.
The confidence boost from the victory in France sent the already deluded Nazis off the deep end. First there was this, but even worse was Barborrosa a year later. They truly believed they were unbeatable and paid a price for it
@@iansneddon2956 m
Thanks.
Obviously we should never forget that these weren't numbers but brave young men from both sides.
I'm no military expert but I've always thought that a sea invasion on the UK by Germany was an almost impossible task.
The Royal Navy was just too strong with literally hundreds of ships available and Britain would have been prepared to sacrifice a good proportion of it if necessary. German landings might have been possible but resupply? Most of the German landing barges were river craft. Unsuitable for the channel. They'd not survive long. It's notable that the German navy itself never thought an invasion possible.
Remember the R.N. evacuations from Greece and Crete? With smaller resources the Luftwaffe caused severe losses.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 true. But the home fleet in 1940 consisted of around 140 ships of destroyer and above + 25 Submarines + escorts. Losing half that would have been a sacrifice worth making to thwart an invasion and I'm sure they would have done it. Initial landings might have been possible, but resupply? There wouldn't have been a German barge or transport still floating.
There was a whole multitude of numbers quoted. There was no indications of which ones I need to know, or why I need to know them. Could you please reiterate?
So how well did the 'Bristol Blenheim fighter' perform in dogfights?
At night they didn't have to dogfight, thankfully.
I read somewhere once that twice an entire squadron of them did not return from their bombing mission. Their cas. rate was pretty frightening
My uncle was the gunner in one, as kids we were warned 'never ask him about the war'. Taboo subject.
@@aussie6910 That's what I meant, the part that you deleted.
There were no Bristol Blenheim fighters.
Or I'm a Boulton Paul Defiant.
@@AudieHolland In the video intro there is a photo of a Blenheim (either side of the minute mark), although hard to tell as it's a mangled wreck. The photo was taken in Bremen docks. My uncle was obs and killed along with the rest of the crew in the bombing raid. Nothing to with the BofB as it was 14 July 1941 the following year. Buried in Germany, his memory is honoured on Weymouth's seafront's war memorial.
Is the caption the relative body mass indexes?
The Hurricane failed to shoot down a single plane....according to the after action interviews with shot down German aircrew. All were shot down by Spitfires :-)
@@dalj4362 You missed the irony.......
He111 crew shot down by navy Blackburn Skuas over Norway insisted that they were shot down by Spitfires, early Spitfire snobbery.
It was downright embarrassing from Luftwaffe fighter Pilots that said that, thinking that the Hurricane couldn't shoot down any 109s 😂😂
@@rexbarron4873to be fair you could say the same with Allied Tankers who claimed every Allied tank destroyed in Normandy was knocked out by a Tiger or an 88, even when neither Tigers or 88mm guns were in the area.
Great narrative and perspective. Britain had to muster all its might in defending her nation and its people. Unfortunately, not enough could be done to save her empire in the Far East as by that time alot of her air assets were diminished and priority was to defend Great Britain. In comparison, today, there are less RAF aircraft defending the skies over Britain. Lets hope NATO and the alliance can defend itself against any adversaries.
Presumably though that small number of aircraft can do a lot more, and everyone else also has less aircraft. But more aircraft would definitely be good, they could maybe get more F35s, and hopefully Tempest or similar projects goes somewhere. But having, you know, 10,000 “spitfires”(Typhoon FGR4s, F35 Lightnings etc…) isn’t really practical anymore, aircraft are far more advanced.
The priority was also sending tanks and fighters to Russia and that's why Malaya was lost.
The British leadership discounted Japanese abilities, and Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas and glory hound Bader killed many many experienced pilots with stupid tactics (the Big Wing) over France in 1941. Those planes and pilots could have been used in North Africa or in Malaya.
The problem for the Germans was the Royal Navy, and that's why the RAF needed to be defeated. If that sounds counter-intuitive, it's like this. Germany could launch an assault on the UK by air, and it probably would have worked. However, the issue was re-supply, be it arms, ammunition, medicine, fresh troops and equipment, even food and potentially water & fuel. Due to the Royal Navy this had to be by air, but, if the RAF were too close by, this would be difficult. As such, the RAF had to be reduced in size, and pushed away from the landing areas (probably the south coast and East Anglia).
Not even close.....Germany perhaps could have mounted airborne raids but certainly not an airborne invasion ! Remember, the English Channel was very heavily mined. We knew where we had mined but the Germans did not. The Royal Navy was vastly superior to the German Navy. Indeed Hitler had planned on transporting his army across the channel in open barges. In order to stand any chance of success he had to have total air superiority. Only if the Luftwaffe could seriously harass the Royal Navy sufficiently to disrupt their inevitable attack on the invasion barges would there be any chance of success. With the RAF still contesting the skies the Luftwaffe would have been unable to concentrate on the Royal Navy and the invasion barges would have been doomed. The Germans believed that the RAF was close to collapse.......in fact the RAF was actually stronger at the end of the BoB than it was at the start. The Germans had got absolutely nowhere, worse still unless Germany could keep the pressure on by continuing to attack the RAF, the stream of new Hurricanes and Spitfires becoming
.....available would continue to swing the air war in Great Britains favour. Whilst we could replace our losses, Germany could not build aircraft fast enough..........the best Germany could do was the Blitz (at night) and that did not work either
❤🇬🇧😘
@@garymoore2535 Actually, the Germans in 1940 had already begun slowing production down, and even exporting aircraft. They had decided that the war was won, and so didn't need so many aircraft. This of course changed later.
The idea that the Germans might launch an air assault was never an option. They did not have enough Junker 52 to do so. The J52 could carry 18 troops but only twelve fully kitted paratroopers.
If Germany had dared to launch a sea invasion the Royal Navy would have swept them from the seas.
That 1.8 : 1 vs 1.2 : 1 ratio number is the Telling statistic there . All the other numbers back it up .
While the RAF rushed new pilots through their OTU's, the skill and quality of those lads was extremely lacking. Perhaps the high attrition of RAF pilots in Oct-Nov reflect that situation. So it's not just about total numbers of pilots, but quality. Also, the 109F was introduced in Oct 1940.
Having said that, the big wing was an effective way of protecting and training young, green, replacement pilots.
Ref kill ratios, I suggest a review of John Vasco's books on the LW fighters, especially the Me110. It was much higher KR than the Hurricanes especially when allowed to perform as a hunter.
Home Versus Away, that was a Huge advantage.
The RAF Recovered many downed Pilots, the Lufwaffe could not.
Skill all round, Dowding Control System.... Hard to Beat. Hitler's Failure to put German Manufacturing onto a War Footing until Mid War was a Massive Mistake. Not Enough Brain said Pooh
I see that under allies neither South Africa and Rhodesia are mentioned.Why?
See 1:34.
I decided to go for the period Ensign flags. Both North and South Rhodesia and ZA are mentioned. I have a personal connection to Zimbo, so never forget them.
@@CalibanRising I am a Zimbo,last of a dying breed.
Are the losses to Bomber command and Coastal watch in addition to the losses recorded for Fighter Command? It seems that there were more aircrew killed in Bomber Command than Fighter Command. Extraordinary - and a little known fact of the campaign. Perhaps worthy of a video?
Hey Andrew. Yes, those losses were in addition to what Fighter Command suffered.
I suppose that every bomber lost equaled 3-6 men depending on the aircraft.
I've got a lot of content in mind for RAF bomber command, but in case you missed it here is a video about the very first RAF bomber raid: ruclips.net/video/bOvBotjuLMI/видео.html
If only the Germans had known about dinghies.
At 01:35,
------------------------------------------------------
you have a Queen's Crown!
Good video, though.
Good eyes. I went with the higher resolution image and didn't spot that. Cheers!
Bomber Command would regularly loose more air crew in one night, than fighter common lost in the whole of the Battle of Britain.
I've always found it interesting that around 550 British pilots died in the Battle of Britain, while over 850 died in accidents flying the Meteor a few years later. In effect the Meteor was able to kill more pilots than the Battle of Britain.
Hardly a 'few years' later. The Meteor was in service for more than thirty years.
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 Calling the Meteor average would be a compliment . It's that old adage backwards if it doesn't look right it probably isn't good . By the early 1950s we had to get some Sabres from the Canadians ; which did look right .... With Whittle way ahead of his time . We could have led jet fighter design for years . Instead the Germans were allowed to obtain the patent . The Me 262 had faults but was way ahead of the Meteor .
@@AnthonyBrown12324 That's all as maybe but it doesn't change the fact that thirty years is more than a few. As for the Me 262, it's engines weren't based on any design of Whittle's and had far more in common of the designs of Griffith and Constant and as for being way ahead of the Meteor, maybe it was or maybe not but whatever, it wasn't enough to make anyone want it after the war. The Meteor and the Me 262 were both little more than experimental aircraft and neither was a close model for future jet fighters.
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 I am aware the Jumo engine was very different from Whittles but he established the feasibility of jet engines and later turbofan designs .If he had been given the support . We might have been better. The Me 262 established the swept wing and was faster by a good 100mph . Despite unreliable engines . The Russians copied that and our engines . Later known as the Mig 15 so we waited for the Hunter in the 50s . Hawker probably would have come up with something better than the Meteor
@@AnthonyBrown12324 But it wasn't just the Jumo that was different from Whittle's engine (and Whittle's patents) and whilst Whittle may have established the feasibility of jet engines as far as the British were concerned (but even that is debateable) the idea that his designs established the feasibility of jet propulsion as far as any other nation is concerned is based on nothing but speculation. The Me262 didn't establish the swept wing as swept wing designs went back as far as 1910 and as far as it's initial superiority in speed, that was a product of minor design issue since the Meteor matched and surpassed its speed.
The Russian's did indeed utilise both British and German design as the basis of the MiG-15 very little of either being based on the Gloster Meteor or the Me 262. Whether Hawker would have come up with something better than the Meteor in that regard is speculation and again none of that changes the fact that thirty years is more than a few.
That graphic of supporting countries’ flags is very misleading, the British had some colonial airmen, a few free poles and free French but were pretty much on their own throughout the Battle of Britain, moral support and the odd international fighter pilot weren’t really relevant.
It also had the flag of Ireland and Ireland was neutral.
18% of RAF fighter pilots were foreign airmen from the Commonwealth or Allied nations. 500 of them with 2300 British pilots, that is extremely relevant.
5:05 Germany didn't switch to a war economy until early (May, IIRC) 1943. Until then it was running a standard 1930's style command economy. The British switched to war economy 2 weeks after the war started. The Americans never went to a war economy and fought the entire war as a command economy.
Well that was there fault then wasn't it?, they thought they could take over the whole of Europe on their terms.
One major advantage the Allied pilots had. Make a dumb mistake, get shot down 50% chance to get back in a plane and learn from the mistake. The Germans had zero opportunity to learn from a dumb mistake
An irksome affected colloquialism and 'glottal stop' and one wonders at sources. Luftwaffe had 2,500 serviceable aircraft at the start of Battle, of which approximately 1,600 were normally 'put up'. Fighter command alone had 1,200 aircraft on the eve of Battle including 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes; however, only 660 of these were serviceable.
Thanks for the feedback
@@CalibanRising You're welcome: hope it registers.
My Great Grandfather was down on the South Coast during the Battle of Britain, with a Royal Artilliery Anti Aircraft gun battery. At first, they would bang away every night, and not hitting anything. The town near their battery, campaigned to have the guns moved because of the distubance they were causing to their sleep. Then, when the battery actually managed to shoot down an aircraft, they became heroes to the villagers with everyone wanting to buy them a pint.
Scot Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt descendant of James Watt KCB FRS FRAeS invented British Radar. Tracking stations called Chain Home integral to The Dowding System along E & S coasts of England in time WWII in 1939. On 2 April 1935, Scot Watson-Watt received a patent on a radio device for detecting and locating an aircraft. Radar operators could see German planes manoeuvring on air fields in France. Direct telephone lines were installed from radar stations to plotting stations in London. Scot Air Chief Marshal Hugh Caswall Tremenheere Dowding GCB GCVO CMG 1882 1970 was in charge Fighter Command, Dowding’s mantra; isolate them, pursue them one by one, do not give them pause, attack them before they release their bombs German bombers not the fighters are our main goal,: concentrate on them, break their formation.
Very good, except for your description of German aircrew captured during the Battle of Britain being sent as POWs to "North America". How hard would it have been for you to say "CANADA" as their destination? My country contributed many pilots to the RAF during the Battle of Britain and then many more to the air fight after the Royal Canadian Air Force was formed. (The other major part of North America fighting in World War II only joined after Pearl Harbor in 1941.) Canada contributed the most to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan which trained 131,500 personnel (including one of Princess Catherine's grandfathers); the second highest contributor was South Africa which trained 33,347 aircrew. Canada manufactured 16,418 aircraft for the war. And convoys from Canada brought much-needed agricultural products across the North Atlantic to help feed Britons. Points to you for stressing how multinational was the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Without the colonies -- and Polish fighters -- Britain would have been toast during WWII.
All very good points. Honestly I had a whisper of a memory that some German POWs captured in 1940 had been transferred from Canada to the US, so was just playing it safe.
@@CalibanRising and at least one of them ESCAPED to the US before they were forced into the war on the allies side.
Yawn!!!,if you say so it must be true.
A shipment of BAM100 from the US after the Battle of France allowed extra supercharging and a better airplane for Battle of Britain.
The truth is the Luftwaffe never recovered from the Battle of Britain, and to some extent the Battle of France. Later in Crete they would lose more aircraft, especially precious JU52s transports which were already in short supply.
Can a German speaker please tell me if the pronunciation of Dornier and Junkers is correct here? Chris on Military Aviation History is German and seems to pronounce them differently.
I'd go with Chris' pronunciation as he's German. I can only try, but it's hard to unlearn something I've been saying in a British accent for 30 years, lol.
@@CalibanRising I've always pronounced them the way you do as well, so I was surprised by Chris's pronunciation. I had to assume he is correct, but then I wondered if he might be anglicizing the words when he speaks English instead of German. I speak only English so I don't know if that is even a thing with these words.
Hitler didn’t need to invade the U.K. He needed to be in a position to get them to the negotiating table. If a truce could be decided, then think of the spare troops he would have had for attacking the Soviet Union. Winning the Battle of Britain was crucial in keep the British actively opposed to Germany, as without the air superiority the British would have been on the back foot, and therefore forcing Germany to fight on more than one front.
Yes Germany lost the battle of Britain on the 9th of April 1940 Even before it began.
The bomb icon you used for Bomber Command tonnage dropped appears to a Fat Man A bomb.
Now THEY would’ve been useful…😃😃
lol
That’s exactly what I thought!
Fighter command pilots. Don't forget the allied pilots which included future Australian PM John Gorton RAAF. Did the German POW's immediately go to the USA? A neutral country at the time. More likely Canada.
Thanks for the comment. I think I covered the multi-national nature of Fighter Command in the first part of the video, and yes you're right most German POWs made it to Canada, which is part of North America!
Hi Phil, half of Londoners killed in World War 2 were caused by descending anti-aircraft shells
I've always wondered about that. Where did the bullets and shells end up? You don't have any sources you can point me to, do you? I'd love to look into this more. Thanks.
Is there a mistake with the German production numbers listed for 1940?
You give over 10 000 planes produced in 1940, yet the Germans apparently only had about 2 000 in Jun 1940.
I think that Overy's figures cover aircraft of all types including combat, training, transport and any other type of aircraft built.
That might cover some of the aircraft on strength at the start of the battle, but many of these would have been produced before 1940.
Also, we need to remember that not every LW aircraft was used in the battle. Some were stationed elsewhere or didn't have the range (109s in Norway) to participate.
and most fell a part
"A piece of strudel" 😄
lol
Did anyone else get bothered by the blurry map in the background. My eyes kept trying to focus. Not a good idea.
Thanks for the feedback Patrick, I appreciate you taking the time to let me know.
At least 937 Spitfires were severely damaged/destroyed from all causes in July-October 1940 period.
Based on Franks it's 969 operational losses of all Fighter Command types. 382 Spits, which suggest most of the damaged ones you mention were either repaired or not included as W/Os.
@@CalibanRising Franks is not historian, to say it mildly.
@@CalibanRising Its currect results of my research from ORBs and Form 622. The number 937 is probably the lowest possible. Some Spitfires were severely damaged two times, several three times. Number of severely damaged or destroyed serials is currently 844. You are the third in the world to know it.
@@CalibanRising Franks wasn't historian, to say it mildly. Number 937 is based on my research from ORBs and Form 622. Quite a number of Spitfire serials were severely damaged/destroyed several times, twice and few even three times. Current number of several damaged/destroyed Spitfire serials is 844. You are the third in the world to know it.
@@ondrejdobrota7344 Let me know when you publish and I'd be happy to use you as a source. Thanks!
tragical fact: in later years the Metor killed nearly as much british personnal as the germans did in the BoB
i think the short fuel fraction of the 109 , the RAF having the "force multiplier " of home turf and the nazis way underestimating the number of fighters required handed the battle to the home team. just look at how the allies covered their air raids into germany with staged waves of fighters and sometimes still came up slightly shorthanded--
Luftwaffe failed to met any of its objectives....They Lost!!!!
A very clear and concise explanation of the current day 20:20 hindsight consensus. A valuable contribution. Congratulations.
If I were in hypercritical mode I might say it could do with just a little more contextusalisation. The resasons why it was important to win
There has been a historiography of accounts from early personal accounts from pilots and commanders to the debunkers and debaggers, spitfire sceptics of the 70's USA cointingent say and on to the analytics of V. Orange and co. |An account ofg those changg accountsmight vbe a isfdful part 2
There is also as "RUclips ography" or social media commentography that is not written yet and may be for someone less close to the process
Are we xpone now - or willl the arguments rolll round and round forever? Short of some new Primary evidence coming to light*I think we must be close
* the 1945 100 year official SEcrets Act release might have some more i guess. Enigma uses, Chain HOme and Low and anti knickebein stuff possibly?
anyway well done
Thanks for watching Bruce and for the feedback, I'll remember this for future videos.
@@CalibanRising You are more than welcome.
OAP Here ,,, My Mother was a War Nurse,, My Father Royal Navy,, He Lost 30 Ship Mates in one Go… in tha Med… on Eve of 1943- 1944 ,, He was Back at D Day….. 😇🏴🇬🇧🥃🍺🏴👍
The Battle of Britain could not have been fought without the Hawker Hurricane. In any dog fight the Hurricane in the hands of a competent pilot was a match for the BF109 and 110.