|
Posts:
594
Registered:
2/3/05
|
|
(16 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 25, 2009 6:07 PM
|
At the start of the battle the RAF was vastly outnumbered. Even by Eagle Day, 13 August, the RAF still had only 579 serviceable Spitfires and Hurricanes against 853 serviceable 109s and approx 200 Bf 110s. And of course the main duty of the RAF was to tackle the enemy bombers.
That changed as the battle wore on, of course. By 7 September, the day the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, the RAF had increased to 621 serviceable Spits and Hurricanes, the Luftwaffe was down to 658 serviceable 109s.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,056
Registered:
2/15/03
|
|
(17 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 26, 2009 3:57 AM
|
Another factor was that go examine all the major Luftwaffe bomber types used during the B.O.B-THE Heinkel 111; the JU 88; THE dORNIERS 17 AND 215'S were all flying glasshouses wide open to pilots/co-pilots being skewered by R.A.F, machine gun fire.
Also their defensive amrs -single 7.9 machine guns mounts were inadequate against 8x .303 machine guns of Spits and Hurris.
Incidentally, to the'' British AA defences were poor '' theorist take note the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in WW2 to land on British souil a ''Lowen''-Lion squadron HE-111 which crashed in October 1939 in the Lammermuir Hills in East Lothian, Scotland was first severely damaged by anti-aircraft fire which wounded crew members before it was shot down by 602/603 fighters. from the City of Glasgow and Edinburgh squadrons.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,606
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(18 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 26, 2009 5:05 PM
|
|
ccording to my book the 893 included all fighters aircraft, including those in repair, operational was apx 700. you also discount the fact that the range of German fighters severly limited their combat time.
|
|
|
Posts:
859
Registered:
2/25/04
|
|
|
Posts:
594
Registered:
2/3/05
|
|
(20 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 26, 2009 6:51 PM
|
> ccording to my book the 893 included all fighters
> aircraft, including those in repair, operational was
> apx 700. you also discount the fact that the range of
> German fighters severly limited their combat time.
No, the Luftwaffe had 976 Bf 109s on hand, 853 serviceable on 13 August, 831 on hand, 658 serviceable on 7 September.
For Bf 110s in the ZG units there were 244 on hand, 189 serviceable on 13 August, 206/112 on 7 September.
These numbers exclude aircraft in the night fighter units etc.
As to the range issue, that's a bit exaggerated. Galland & co used it as an excuse, but the truth is the German fighters did a bit better over London in September than they had over the SE in August, when the distance from base was lower. The main fighter bases for the Luftwaffe were in the Pas de Calais, about 30 miles from the English coast.
The main RAF fighter bases were around London.
As an example, the first main German attack on the 15 August, the day of heaviest fighting in the battle, saw an attack on Hawkinge and Lympne airfields in Kent. Hawkinge is about 29 miles from the Pas de Calais, Lympne about 32 miles.
The RAF sent squadrons from Kenley, Gravesend and Hornchurch to intercept. Gravesend is the closest, 39 miles from Hawkinge and 40 from Lympne. Hornchurch was 48/51 miles, Kenley 51/56 miles.
Of course when the fighting moved to London the range issue changed dramatically. The Luftwaffe were now operating 80 - 90 miles from base, the RAF 20 - 30 miles. But as I said, the Luftwaffe actually did a bit better than they had over Kent, so the range can't have been that much of a problem.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,056
Registered:
2/15/03
|
|
(21 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN? Nashwan
Jun 26, 2009 7:14 PM
|
|
Nashwan-how many Boulton Paul Defiiants did the R.A.F. have to pull out of the frontline during the B.O.B.because these fighters with rear firing turrets only were hopelessly vulnerable to head on attacks from ME-109 's?
|
|
|
Posts:
265
From:
England, Great Britain
Registered:
6/12/09
|
|
(22 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN? Nashwan
Jun 27, 2009 7:42 AM
|
|
wow alot of good responces here. I should just say that I was more asking a question then making a statement. There are a lot of logical answers but i dont think they had as big of an influence as we are lead to belive. what i want to know is why head to head the british got the better of the germans dispite the fact most of its pilots were poorly trained. and lets not forget that the spitfire wasn't as effective as the hurricane in this battle.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,563
From:
Southern California Foothills
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(23 of 63)
Jun 27, 2009 8:58 AM
|
>and lets not forget that the spitfire wasn't as effective as the hurricane in this battle.<
I'll start with this one. I interpret your statement about "effectiveness" in light of the fact that the Hurricanes outnumbered the Spitfire in the BoB by about 2:1. As far as downing bombers, yes. That was their primary job. As far as competing on equal footing as a fighter to the Bf-109, the Spit outshone the Hurri quite brightly.
>There are a lot of logical answers but i dont think they had as big of an influence as we are lead to belive.<
An odd statement. Who's "we"?
>what i want to know is why head to head the british got the better of the germans dispite the fact most of its pilots were poorly trained.<
I think you are looking at way-too-narrow a parameter for your explanations of the British victory in the BoB. Pilot training is just one of maybe twenty factors, and really not too significant in the overall scheme of things.
Maybe you can explain WHY you think the Germans SHOULD HAVE gotten the better of the British (your point of view, seemingly). Nearly all the parameters of aerial victory that had given the Luftwaffe success prior to the BoB were missing. The Germans did NOT have surprise (VERY IMPORTANT); they were facing a nearly-equal foe instead of clearly inferior ones, and their ground forces could not assist in the dislocation of logistics and morale that permeated the previous campaigns. Every student of military affairs knows that the attacker needs about a 3:1 numerical advantage to be successful. The Germans only had about a 1.5 to 1 advantage and were unprepared for the type of aerial operation upon which they were ready to embark. The British had prepared for the exact scenario the Germans presented, and despite a few disadvantages (both sides were learning about "modern" aerial warfare as they went) really held the high cards in the game.
So I truly believe that the German ability to force Britain out of the war in the summer of 1940 was quite a long shot. They gambled and lost.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,563
From:
Southern California Foothills
Registered:
9/10/99
|
|
(24 of 63)
Jun 27, 2009 9:07 AM
|
|
I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe there were only two squadrons of Defiants operational during the BoB (one of them being 264 squadron, off the top of my head), so pulling them out was no big deal. Months earlier, over Dunkirk, after their initial success due to surprise the Defiant's weaknesses were well known and "appreciated", so Defiants were not used much in the BoB.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,056
Registered:
2/15/03
|
|
(25 of 63)
Re: Defiants-Thanks Craig
Jun 27, 2009 1:24 PM
|
|
I know hat there lack of forward firepower defence with all four .303 machine guns being housed n the rear turret was a silly idea.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,397
From:
Stockport UK
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(26 of 63)
Jun 27, 2009 3:47 PM
|
&> I'll start with this one. I interpret your statement
> about "effectiveness" in light of the fact that the
> Hurricanes outnumbered the Spitfire in the BoB by
> about 2:1. As far as downing bombers, yes. That was
> their primary job. As far as competing on equal
> footing as a fighter to the Bf-109, the Spit outshone
> the Hurri quite brightly.
Hurricanes shot down twice as many enemy aircraft down in the BoB than the Spitfire. But as you have pointed out, there were twice as many in service. So the Spitfire and Hurricane were equally effective at shooting down enemy aircraft. The advantage of the Spitfire was the fact that if you flew in a Hurricane you were twice as likely to be killed than if you flew a Spitfire.
It seems that the performance difference between the two was more important in keeping you alive than shooting down enemy aircraft
--
If in doubt..... Panic !!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
2,397
From:
Stockport UK
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(27 of 63)
Jun 27, 2009 3:59 PM
|
> I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe there
> were only two squadrons of Defiants operational
> during the BoB (one of them being 264 squadron, off
> the top of my head), so pulling them out was no big
> deal. Months earlier, over Dunkirk, after their
> initial success due to surprise the Defiant's
> weaknesses were well known and "appreciated", so
> Defiants were not used much in the BoB.
On the 1st july 1940 there were 25 operational Defiants
--
If in doubt..... Panic !!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
22
From:
Texas
Registered:
2/2/09
|
|
(28 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 27, 2009 4:21 PM
|
A few points to consider:
1. Defensive battle for R.A.F.; its pilots were able to fly several sorties a day, while the Luftwaffe (especially fighters) had very limited time over U.K targets. An R.A.F. pilot who survived being shot down usually was able to return to combat soon. Not so for German pilots.
2. Highly-skilled Polish fighter pilots. Serving then with British squadrons, they escaped Poland after the 1939 Nazi/Soviet invasions to fight again in France and Britain. They had a high kill ratio over pilots lost. R.A.F 303 squadron shot down 126 Nazi aircraft during the Battle of Britain. Primarily a Polish squadron, 303 (also known as the Kosciuszko Squadron) was one of the best Allied fighter squadrons of World War Two, though seldom appreciated/known.
3. Hawker Hurricanes. There were more Hurricanes defending the U.K. during the Battle of Britain; Spitfire was in limited use then. It just seems that the Spitfire received more publicity. It was a great defensive fighter, with sufficient range for the Battle of Britain.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,606
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(29 of 63)
Re: How on earth did the R.A.F win the battle of BritAIN?
Jun 27, 2009 7:50 PM
|
|
its not jsut range its combat time that matters and the German fighters could not stay over Britain that long. the numbers are not as important because of radar. The British could send just enough.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(30 of 63)
Jun 28, 2009 7:52 AM
|
> > Hurricanes outnumbered the Spitfire in the BoB
> by
> > about 2:1. As far as downing bombers, yes. That
> was
> > their primary job. As far as competing on equal
> > footing as a fighter to the Bf-109, the Spit
> outshone
> > the Hurri quite brightly.
>
> Hurricanes shot down twice as many enemy aircraft
> down in the BoB than the Spitfire. But as you have
> pointed out, there were twice as many in service. So
> the Spitfire and Hurricane were equally effective at
> shooting down enemy aircraft. The advantage of the
> Spitfire was the fact that if you flew in a Hurricane
> you were twice as likely to be killed than if you
> flew a Spitfire.
One of the problems with analyzing which was most efficient is it presumes that the British should have sub optimized the RAF. The point should be not to get the best out of any one plane but to get the best out of your air force. I suspect that if the RAF had been either all Hurricane or all Spitfire equipped they would not have done as well as they did with the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
